Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

Productivity Agreements

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is her latest assessment of the extent to which productivity agreements which were part of a wage increase agreement have been fulfilled; and if she will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): The latest general assessment of productivity agreements is that made by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in its Report No. 123 in August, 1969. This report indicated that in three-quarters of the companies examined the net effect of the agreement was the achievement of lower costs per unit of output.

Mr. Marten: Now that the right hon. Lady has condemned Part II of the Prices and Incomes Act, can she say whether these recent high pay settlements have been matched by productivity, and if not, are we not moving into a very dangerous situation?

Mrs. Castle: In every case it is the aim of my Department to back up the work of the Prices and Incomes Board, and to have a productivity link-up, if possible.

Mr. Higgins: Does the right hon. Lady have up-to-date assessments? Is it not crucial to know to what extent percentage increases in wages have been matched by percentage increases in productivity? What are the figures?

Mrs. Castle: I can only be expected to give the assessment asked for in this Question.

Mr. William Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend now take the opportunity of correcting the unfortunate statement she is alleged to have made, that nurses are not productive workers?

Mrs. Castle: I am at a loss to understand what my hon. Friend can be referring to. I have never made any such statement.

Industrial Disputes

Mr. Speed: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will list the number of stoppages and working days lost due to industrial disputes in 1969, both including and excluding coal-mining, respectively.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): The total number of stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the United Kingdom which began in 1969 was 3,021. Working days lost in ail stoppages in progress in the year totalled 6,772,000. Excluding coal mining, the corresponding figures were 2,837 stoppages and 5,733,000 days lost. All these figures are provisional.

Mr. Speed: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the number of stoppages due to industrial disputes in 1969 is an all-time record in our industrial history?

Mr. Walker: This, as a matter of fact, is true, but it is not true in respect of the number of days lost.

Mr. R. W. Brown: Can my hon. Friend tell us what was the number of days lost in the corresponding period as a result of people injured in factories and homes?

Mr. Walker: The latest figures available are the provisional figures for the year ending June 1968. In that year we lost, as a result of incapacity, 328 million days due to sickness, and 23 million days due to industrial injuries—about 50 times as many as were lost due to strikes.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that there has been a marked deterioration since the Government abandoned their industrial legislation proposals last summer? Is he aware that while strikes increasesd by 60 per cent. in the first six months of


last year, in the second part of last year they went up by about 120 per cent.?

Mr. Walker: It is not exceptional for the figures to be worse for the second half of the year. The current industrial unrest is very disturbing but is a phenomenon being experienced by most other industrial countries.

Mr. Bradley: Regrettable though last year's figures were, can my hon. Friend confirm that 1957 was a worse year? Who was the Minister responsible at that time, and what solutions did the then Government put forward?

Mr. Walker: In the first nine months of 1957 8 million days were lost through industrial disputes. I think that the Ministers responsible were the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and his Parliamentary Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr).

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many stoppages due to industrial disputes were in progress during December, 1969 and had lasted for thirteen weeks or more; and in how many of these disputes the Trades Union Congress intervened and with what effect.

Mrs. Castle: Nine stoppages of work due to industrial disputes which were in progress during December, 1969 had lasted for 13 weeks or more. Three arose from inter-union disputes, one of which was resolved following an award by a T.U.C. disputes committee, another is still under consideration by the T.U.C., and in the third work was resumed following action by the T.U.C. and my Department. With one exception, the other disputes were official.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Lady aware that although there may be a difference in degrees of optimism, nevertheless most of us would want the T.U.C. to be successful in this matter? Therefore, in view of the failure up to the present to achieve any outstanding success, would it not be better for the T.U.C. to come in earlier? For example, would it not be better if it were now to come in on the threatened Ford dispute since it has already been indicated that there is the prospect of a strike there?

Mrs. Castle: I cannot for a moment accept that there has been no outstanding success. The figures I have given in reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question show that the T.U.C. has intervened, certainly energetically and very often effectively. Clearly it is a very important part of a successful intervention that the timing should be right.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the T.U.C. is making a valuable contribution to the solving of inter-union disputes, and is it not time that the Opposition stopped sniping at it?

Mrs. Castle: I agree with my hon. Friend. All objective opinion in the country is impressed by the sincerity and energy with which Mr. Feather has carried out the responsibilities that he has undertaken. It is a great pity indeed that hon. Gentlemen opposite should do their utmost to render those efforts nugatory.

Mr. Dudley Smith: How can the right hon. Lady be so complacent when industrial disputes are now running at over three times the rate they were on average when we were in power for over 13 years?

Mrs. Castle: Nobody is being complacent. We are discussing the activity of the General Secretary of the T.U.C. in helping to deal with the problem of industrial disputes, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out in an earlier reply, is not a problem solely related to this country. I also make the observation that over 60 per cent. of those strikes in the past year have lasted for only a few days, and no legislation could bite on those.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (1) if she will list the number of stoppages and days lost due to industrial disputes, both including and excluding coal-mining, for the period January to June 1969 and the same figures for the years 1960 to 1968, inclusive;
(2) if she will list the number of stoppages and days lost due to industrial disputes, both including and excluding coal-mining, for the period July to December, 1969 and the same figures for the years 1960 to 1968, inclusive.

Mr. Harold Walker: I will, with permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Crouch: The House will be aware from answers to Questions this afternoon that the trend in the growth of stoppages and strikes is a serious matter. Can the Minister assure us that the steps the Government have or have not taken to arrest this trend will be successful?

Mr. Walker: I have not a crystal ball, but, as the House knows, we are seeking to introduce an Industrial Relations Bill which will seek to remove some of the fundamental causes of strikes.

Mr. Moonman: Will not my hon. Friend take a much more severe line with the Opposition on this matter? Many of

STOPPAGES OF WORK DUE TO INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (UNITED KINGDOM)




Stoppages beginning in period
Working days lost in all stoppages in progress in period




Total
Excluding coal mining
Total
Excluding coal mining




1st January-30th June
1st July-31st December
1st January-30th June
1st July-31st December
1st January-30th June
1st July-31st December
1st January-30th June
1st July-31st December


1969 (Provisional)
…
1,488
1,533
1,378
1,459
2,660,000
4,112,000
2,620,000
3,113,000


1968
…
1,134
1,244
1,022
1,135
3,109,000
1,581,000
3,085,000
1,551,000


1967
…
1,079
1,037
857
865
1,066,000
1,721,000
1,006,000
1,676,000


1966
…
1,190
747
867
517
1,786,000
612,000
1,715,000
565,000


1965
…
1,372
982
928
686
2,010,000
915,000
1,653,000
860,000


1964
…
1,336
1,188
765
701
1,382,000
895,000
1,185,000
790,000


1963
…
1,005
1,063
471
610
634,000
1,121,000
435,000
994,000


1962
…
1,426
1,023
742
502
4,634,000
1,164,000
4,443,000
1,047,000


1961
…
1,527
1,159
705
523
1,947,000
1,099,000
1,359,000
950,000


1960
…
1,541
1,291
652
514
1,633,000
1,391,000
1,358,000
1,172,000

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many and what percentage of the recorded stoppages due to industrial disputes other than in coal mining in 1969 were official.

Mr. Harold Walker: For industries other than coal mining, 78, or 2·7 per cent., of all the stoppages of work due to industrial disputes which began in the United Kingdom in 1969 are known to have been official. These figures are provisional.

Mr. Wiggin: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that this is another record broken? At what point will his right hon. Friend admit that the action by the Government and the T.U.C. has proved ineffective. How much more serious will

us feel that their approach to the whole question of industrial relations is churlish and clumsy. Will he not spell out to the trade union movement that if the Conservative Party ever comes to power—heaven forbid—it will introduce legislation which will wreck the whole of our industrial relations?

Mr. Walker: We should not minimise the seriousness of the problem. It is a matter for concern. Equally we have made clear to the House on many occasions that the proposals put forward by the Opposition so belatedly, after the years in which they had an opportunity to do something, can do nothing but harm to our industrial relations.

The following is the information:

the problem be allowed to become before the Government take positive action?

Mr. Walker: I do not know how many times we have to tell the Opposition before it sinks in that this phenomenon is not peculiar to the United Kingdom and that the Government, contrary to what the Opposition did during their years of office—when, for example, in 1957 the number of days lost reached 8 million—have acted and secured an undertaking from the T.U.C., an undertaking which would have been inconceivable a year ago.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Would my hon. Friend agree that we are not too happy about the loss of days due to industrial disputes at present? But could he state the number of days lost due to


industrial disputes in the years since 1951, and also say who were the Ministers responsible at that time?

Mr. Walker: I will not give them in reply to a supplementary question.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Walker: If I had your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would be delighted to read out the table. One sees, for example, that year after year the Conservative Party in government had a worse record than the average under the present Government. I repeat that in 1957 the number of days lost reached 8 million. This was in the days when the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) was Parliamentary Secretary. The number of days lost in 1962 was almost 6 million. If the House wants the record, I am delighted to give it.

Mr. John Page: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will state the number of stoppages and working days lost due to industrial disputes for the month of November, 1969, and equivalent total figures for 1969, including November, which have affected the industry manufacturing motor vehicles, motor cycles, three-wheel vehicles and pedal cycles.

Mr. Harold Walker: The numbers of stoppages in the motor vehicle and cycle manufacturing industries beginning in the month of November, 1969, and in the period 1st January to 30th November, 1969, were 32 and 261, respectively. Working days lost at the establishments where the disputes occurred as a result of all stoppages in progress in the same periods were 76,000 and 1,498,000, respectively. All figures for 1969 are provisional.

Mr. Page: In view of that absolutely disastrous statement and the fact that the number of working days lost in the motorcar and motorcycle industries is more than three times greater than it was in 1964, does not the hon. Gentleman fee] ashamed that the Government have ducked out of the "In Place of Strife" legislation?

Mr. Walker: I have had occasion to rebuke hon. Gentlemen opposite for persisting in selecting figures designed to give them the maximum political mileage out of what is admittedly a disturbing situa-

tion. However, it is curious that in 1969 our car exports rose by 14 per cent. in number and almost 22 per cent. in value.

Mr. Russell Kerr: For the benefit of industrially illiterate hon. Gentlemen opposite, would my hon. Friend supplement the figures he has given by making a reference to the number of days lost through injury and illness?

Mr. Walker: I pointed out in reply to an earlier supplementary question that each year we lose 50 to 60 times as much time as a result of injuries and sickness as we lose as a result of industrial disputes.

Mr. R. Carr: In view of the great concentration which the Under-Secretary has been placing on hours and days lost and so on, can he explain why his right hon. Friend was at pains in her White Paper to expound the particularly damaging nature of the frequent number of small disputes, which are typical in this country?

Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend was right to spell this out. It is equally important to bear in mind that of the disputes which occurred in 1969 almost two-thirds were of less than three days' duration; and no policy is likely to bite on those. Would the right hon. Gentleman's policy?

North-East Lancashire (Employment)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement about her meeting with the authorities involved in North-East Lancashire to discuss employment problems in the area.

Mrs. Castle: The purpose of the conference at Clayton-le-Moors was to examine what can be done to secure the most effective use of manpower in the area, to match the demand for and supply of labour so that production is not held back, and to make full use of Government assistance to intermediate areas.
It provided an opportunity for a valuable exchange of views on a wide range of manpower problems between Members of Parliament for the area, trade unions and employers, local authorities, technical colleges, planning bodies, local employment committees and Government


Departments. As chairman of the conference, I found many useful points raised in the discussions, and these are now being considered.

Mr. Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this conference, which was quite rightly held in my constituency, was a most successful innovation? Can she say whether she has borne in mind one of the points constantly made; namely, that the Government should consider whether they could increase retraining grants in respect of men over the age of 40?

Mrs. Castle: This was a very interesting point which came out during the discussions. There is a shortage of labour in the area, and it is obviously absurd for anyone to be considered too old at 50 in that situation. The suggestion was made that special grants should be made for the training of the over-40s. We are discussing this with the industrial training board.

Women Workers, West Midlands (Earnings)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the gross average earnings of women workers in the West Midlands.

Mr. Harold Walker: The latest available annual figure is £581 for the tax year 1967 to 1968 as published in the Abstract of Regional Statistics 1969. This relates to all women, including part-time workers, aged 18 to 59 with at least 48 national insurance contributions paid in the period and covered by P.A.Y.E. arrangements.

Mrs. Short: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for confirming what I told him last time he answered my Question about this. Does he recall that when I asked him what the average gross earnings for women were he did not want to believe me when I said that West Midlands women were earning less? Does he not think that this proves conclusively that it is high time we had the Bill for equal pay for equal work?

Mr. Walker: I must point out that while the figures for the West Midlands are lower than the national average, they are only marginally so. The national

average is £587. But I wholeheartedly agree about the need for equal pay.

Messrs. Hobsons, Wolverhampton (Redundancies)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action she intends to take to ensure that the 300 workers made redundant at Messrs. Hobsons, Wolverhampton, are found suitable alternative employment with the minimum delay.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity (Mr. Edmund Dell): I am informed that the final termination date of this redundancy is 27th February. A team of my officers has already visited the factory and interviewed all those concerned who wanted advice or help in finding work. My officers have also made special approaches to employers likely to be interested in the labour becoming available. It is expected that most of those affected will find suitable jobs without much difficulty and indeed about 100 have already done so.

Mrs. Short: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for telling me what I already knew; namely, that his Department in Wolverhampton would go to the greatest lengths to try to find new jobs for men made redundant.

Hon. Members: Question!

Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that I do not share his complacency in the latter part of his reply? Does he appreciate that today I have had a telephone message to say that another 400 men, in another of the largest employing firms in my constituency, have been declared redundant today—[Interruption.]—and that in the Hobsons case many of these men are skilled men? What is he going to do about it?[Interruption.]—Be quiet, you lot. This is serious business. Shut up.

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend's Question related to one redundancy, where we hope that those involved will speedily secure other work. My hon. Friend now gives me details of another redundancy, and we shall certainly assist in that case in every way we can. It is true that there is little difficulty in this area for a skilled person to find a job.

Service Industries (Earnings)

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will indicate the difference, in real terms, of the basic wage, and average take-home pay, of each of the service industries as against the distributive trades; and what action is being taken by the employers and trade unions concerned, in conjunction with her Department, to bridge the differential between the various industries.

Mr. Harold Walker: With permission, will arrange for some results of the new earnings survey in September 1968 to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. These are taken from comprehensive analyses of the make-up of earnings, published in the August, 1969 issue of the Department of Employment and Productivity Gazette.
I regret that it has not been possible to provide the information in the particular form requested.
The differences shown between the various service industries are not very wide, except that there are more opportunities for overtime working in the transport industry. My right hon. Friend intends to make references to the N.B.P.I. of cases of industries where low pay is a problem, and she is in consultation with the C.B.I. and T.U.C. about this.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents employed in the service and distributive trades are receiving some of the lowest wages in the country? Will he give his attention to the claim made by their trade union representatives that selective employment tax is to blame for some of those low wages?

Mr. Walker: I am not sure that I could agree with my hon. Friend about the effect of S.E.T., but I said in my original reply that my right hon. Friend is concerned about the low pay in particular industries and is in consultation with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. about what may be helpful references to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Higgins: Surely the hon. Gentleman should have a view on this because Professor Reddaway has now presented his report on the effect of S.E.T. in the distributive trades. What does the hon.

Gentleman have to say? Has he read the report?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not a matter for my Department.

Following is the information:

The following shows what percentage of the gross earnings of employees in the sample in the new earnings survey September 1968 was described as basic pay by their employers. The figures relate to full-time manual men aged 21 and over and full-time manual women aged 18 and over who were paid for not less than their normal basic hours in the survey week.

Industry
SIC (1958) Order
Basic pay as percentage of gross earnings




Men
Women


Transport and Communication
XIX
66·2
76·7


Distributive Trades
XX
77·2
90·6


Professional and Scientific Services
XXII
79·7
90·1


Miscellaneous Services
XXIII
79·1
87·7


Public Administration
XXIV
81·8
90·9

Pay for overtime, shift, night and weekend work, payments by results, bonus, commission, holiday pay, guaranteed pay and other additions account for the remainder of gross earnings.

Scaffolding (Safety)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what regulations she has made to ensure the inspection and safety of scaffolding.

Mr. Harold Walker: These matters are covered by the Construction (Working Places) Regulations 1966 (S.I. 1966 No. 94).

Mr. Fisher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I wonder whether they are adequately covered? In view of the tragic death of Sir David Rose, the Governor-General of Guyana, in Whitehall, is the hon. Gentleman entirely satisfied that existing arrangements adequately safeguard the public, since if scaffolding is expected to be used for only six months the Factory Inspectorate does not have to be informed? Is he aware that in those cases there is literally no safeguard for the public as to how it is used?

Mr. Walker: Without detracting from the proper concern and sympathy over this particularly tragic incident, I do not think that we ought to be stampeded by one or two spectacular accidents from focusing our attention on what are the real causes for concern. If we look at


the accidents in the construction industry, those arising from scaffolding collapses form only a minor part. I have had a full inquiry made into this accident, as a consequence of which the district factory inspector has decided to prosecute both the scaffolding contractor and the main contractor for breaches of the regulations. The case is expected to be heard early in February.

Christmas and New Year (National Holiday)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what further study she has made of the variations in industry in observing the industrial breaks at Christmas and the New Year; and if she will now initiate discussions with the Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry on the possibilities of having an annual eight-day national holiday week covering Christmas and the New Year.

Mr. Harold Walker: Holidays in industry are a matter for negotiation and agreement between employers and employees.

Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend recall that this is as far as we got last year? Is he not aware that it is a major function of his Department to provide a better life for the British industrial worker? What does he feel about the proposition that the increase in productivity after a holiday of this type would more than offset the few hours of production work lost?

Mr. Walker: It is still a matter for negotiation.

Disabled Workers (Development Areas)

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will take steps to draw the attention of new firms receiving Government assistance in development areas to the requirement to employ a quota of disabled persons.

Mr. Dell: All new firms with 20 or more employees have their attention drawn to their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts, 1944 and 1958, including the requirement to employ a quota of registered disabled persons.

Mr. Watkins: While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that through the heavy nature of the declining industries in many of the development areas those areas have particularly high percentages of disabled persons? Is he satisfied that the new employers to whom my Question refers are aware of their responsibilities?

Mr. Dell: I think they are, and we are taking special steps to ensure that they remain aware of their responsibilities. In development areas the percentage quota achieved in the employment of disabled persons is, probably for the reasons my hon. Friend gives, higher than for the country in general.

Mr. Marten: Is the Minister aware that of the firms which are obligated to employ 3 per cent. of disabled persons on their payroll, 44 per cent. are not fulfilling their obligations? Is he further aware that the rate of unemployment among disabled people is 11 per cent.? What are the Government doing about it?

Mr. Dell: Many firms have permits in respect of the percentage of the number of disabled people they employ. However, we are making particular efforts to ensure that employers are aware of their responsibilities and that they are living up to them. We are tightening up our scrutiny of the application of the present regulations.

Unemployment Statistics (Pensioners Registered for Employment)

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is her estimate of the number of retired persons between the age of 60 and 65 years who are registered for employment and are drawing private pensions of over £25 per week.

Mr. Dell: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, on 15th December, 1969.—[Vol. 793, c. 934.]

Mr. Costain: I am aware of that statement, but does the Minister appreciate that in areas like Folkestone, with a higher than normal number of elderly people retiring, there is a danger that the unemployment figures may get distorted? We must remember that the


figures are very bad at the moment. May we have an assurance that these figures will not be fudged so as to hide the number of people involved in this category of unemployment?

Mr. Dell: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's question. There is no question of fudging the figures. The statement to which I referred was a statement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security in regard to the policy of the provision of unemployment benefit to occupational pensioners. That Department is responsible for that policy.

Mergers (Social and Economic Policy)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will negotiate a research contract with the Economics Faculty of an appropriate university, with a view to general studies, involving the social and economic consequences of a number of mergers in industry.

Mr. Dell: Following the pilot study referred to in my right hon. Friend's answer of 4th December, we have made good progress, in consultation with a number of academic research bodies, in drawing up a fuller research programme.

Mr. Dalyell: Would my hon. Friend say to which academic research bodies these relate?

Mr. Dell: We are in consultation with a number of bodies; for example, Sussex University. We have not yet decided the manner in which this research will be conducted. We will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Hooley: Could my hon. Friend's Department bring some pressure to bear on the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to have consultations with the trade unions as well as with private employer interests when involved in far-reaching measures which may result in substantial redundancies?

Mr. Dell: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, but my understanding is that the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has exactly that sort of consultation in respect of mergers in which it is involved.

Incomes (Comparisons)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether, in view of the very high wages paid to typists and secretaries in the London area, she will initiate a study group within her Department to determine how rates for women in these occupations compare with rates for men among the lower-paid occupations.

Mr. Harold Walker: Although not immediately available, information about the earnings of secretaries and typists in the London area could be extracted, but at some expense, from the data collected in the New Earnings Survey carried out by my Department.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that we do not really need the information since it is there to be seen all round us? It shows that there are a great many young girls who are being grossly overpaid for work which cannot be compared with the work being done by some young men in London for which they are grossly underpaid? When we are talking about equal pay, can we be sure that the right hon. Lady is also concerned to see equal pay for the boys and the men?

Mr. Walker: I do not see any reason why some women should not get more than some men if they are doing a more highly skilled job. This will be increasingly so when equal pay rightly is introduced.

Commission on Industrial Relations

Mr. John Page: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the total number of references she has made to the Commission on Industrial Relations to date; and when reports are expected to be available.

Mrs. Castle: I have made 16 references to the Commission on Industrial Relations so far. The reports on five of these have already been published. Further reports are expected next month.

Mr. Page: In view of the rather unproductive rôle of the Commission on Industrial Relations, would the right hon. Lady consider combining it with the


C.I.M., when that body comes into being?

Mrs. Castle: The answer to that question is "No", because I do not accept the premise from which the hon. Gentleman started his question. I cannot for one moment accept that the C.I.R. has an unproductive rôle. An extensive programme of work is being worked out for the C.I.R., and the reports that it has already produced have made valuable contributions in the matter of trade union recognition and industrial relations.

Mr. McGuire: Would my right hon. Friend say what effect the work of the industrial training boards has had on the quality and quantity of men trained?

Mrs. Castle: The Question relates not to industrial training but to the work of the Commission on Industrial Relations.

Northern Region (Training Centres)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many men were trained in Government training centres in the Northern Region in 1964 and 1969, respectively; and what percentage of these men was placed in employment subsequently.

Mr. Dell: In 1964, 316 men completed training, and 96 per cent. of them were subsequently placed in employment. In 1969 the number completing training was 1,461, of whom 90 per cent. had been placed by the end of the year.

Mr. Boyden: While I agree that the figures are very good indeed, can my hon. Friend say what are the commonest reasons why trained men fail to secure jobs?

Mr. Dell: In certain cases simply because of lack of employment opportunities. As my hon. Friend will see, in 1969 over 90 per cent. had been placed by the end of the year. We would expect that figure to rise to 95 per cent. at least in the course of a month or so.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many places were available in Government training centres in the Northern Region in 1964 and 1969, respectively; and how many more places will become available in 1970 and 1971.

Mr. Dell: The number has risen from 400 in October, 1964 to 1,060 in December, 1969. By mid-1970 there will be over 1,500 places, and by mid-1971 about 1,800.

Mr. Boyden: Do not these figures show that the Labour Government have done an infinitely better job than the party opposite during its years of office?

Mr. Dell: Yes, Sir. The extension of the provision of Government training centres has been a major achievement by this Government.

Motor Industry (Wage Parity)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if, in view of the recent proposals on wage parity between persons employed in the motor industry in different parts of Great Britain put forward by trades unionists at Vauxhall's and Ford's, a copy of which is in her possession, she will now initiate as a matter of urgency a general inquiry into wage parity in the motor industry.

Mr. Harold Walker: As negotiations following a claim for parity with the Midlands are taking place at Fords at present, it would not be appropriate for me to comment.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: We all know that negotiations are taking place, but would my hon. Friend not agree that it has been evident for a very long time that this problem would dominate the motor industry this year? Does he not accept that the real need for his Department in matters of this kind is for it to anticipate and solve problems, and not merely to react to them?

Mr. Walker: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend would be one of the first to complain about Government interference with collective bargaining if we responded to that suggestion.

Mr. Crawshaw: Does my hon. Friend not realise that he was warned that this trouble would arise four months ago? It is all very well for people to laugh at the suggestion that his Department ought to intervene, but this is a problem that will always be with us. Whether or not this differential is now evened out, this matter is sure to arise again in regard


to the people who have the differential taken from them. This matter must be settled on a nation-wide basis, not just in relation to one lot of unions.

Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend and other Ministers have repeatedly warned of the dangers of constant leapfrogging and the restoration of differentials. In so far as my hon. Friend refers to that matter, I agree with him.

National Minimum Wage

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will now introduce legislation to provide for the phased introduction of a national minimum wage.

Mrs. Castle: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) on 6th November, 1969.—[Vol. 790 c. 1172–3.]

Mr. Ashley: In view of the reference in the White Paper to a national minimum wage and the number of families living on incomes of less than £15 a week, does my right hon. Friend agree that a national minimum wage would be a valuable instrument for tackling poverty?

Mrs. Castle: I certainly agree that a national minimum wage would be one way to help a substantial proportion of low-income households. However. it might be an unduly costly and cumbersome way of dealing with the matter. This is why I said in the White Paper that the problem of low pay should be tackled case by case and industry by industry. It is also why I am suggesting that certain references relating to the low pay problem should be made to the Prices and Incomes Board while we are giving further consideration to the question of a national minimum wage.

Mrs. Ewing: While the Minister is tackling this matter industry by industry and case by case, will she also tackle it place by place and look at the special need for this legislation in Scotland, where wages are lower and prices are higher?

Mrs. Castle: Naturally, the purpose of the references which I shall make is to enable tile Prices and Incomes Board to identify pockets of low pay, wherever they may be.

Mrs. Ewing: They are in Scotland.

Mrs. Castle: As I have told the House, I have been in consultation with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. about the list of proposed references that I have put before them. I understand that the General Council of the T.U.C. yesterday approved the proposed references in principle and is now consulting its individual unions about the detailed suggestions.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not now obvious, after the considerable experience that we have had and with respect to the trade unions, negotiations and other matters of this kind—including the efforts of the Prices and Incomes Board—that we cannot solve the problem of the lower-paid worker except through a national minimum wage enforced by law? May I direct my right hon. Friend's attention to the submissions which I made to the Attlee Government on two occasions—they probably require some modification now—on the subject of a national wage policy?

Mrs. Castle: While sympathising with the aim of my right hon. Friend, I do not believe that a national minimum wage introduced by legislation would achieve its aim unless there were co-operation from the trade union movement. If a national minimum wage were used only as a new floor on which higher differentials were to be built, the whole process would be self-defeating. I have expressed a willingness to receive any representations from the trade union movement on the basis of the Report on a National Minimum Wage which I published.

Disabled Persons (Selective Employment Tax)

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will now investigate the effects of selective employment tax on the unemployment of people on the Disabled Persons Register.

Mr. Dell: Investigations which have been carried out by my Department on a number of occasions have not shown any connection between the incidence of selective employment tax and unemployment among registered disabled persons.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 10 per cent. disabled


unemployed will be absolutely fascinated by those remarkable conclusions? Will he publish the nature and details of the survey so that they may study them?

Mr. Dell: I am certainly prepared to write to my hon. Friend giving him the information on which this is based.

Hon. Members: Publish it.

Mr. Dell: Between August, 1966, and August, 1969, the increase in the number of unemployed registered disabled persons in tax-bearing industries was less than that of all other unemployed persons.

Mr. John Page: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the numbers of people on the Disabled Persons Register has gone up since the introduction of S.E.T.? If so, can he deny that S.E.T. has had some effect on the employment of disabled people?

Mr. Dell: The number of registered disabled persons has risen since S.E.T. was introduced, but there are many other factors involved in that increase in unemployment. We have no evidence of there being a connection between the two.

Retail Prices (Index)

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the percentage increase in the index of retail prices for food and for all items, respectively, in the 12 months ended December, 1969 and in each of the previous equivalent 12-month periods since December, 1959.

Mr. Dell: As the Answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Archer: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that over half the rise has been caused by indirect taxation imposed by this Government, and in particular by S.E.T.? Is not this another good reason for abolishing S.E.T.?

Mr. Dell: One effect of the policy of this Government, of which increases in indirect taxes have been a part, has been to place Britain in one of the strongest balance of payments positions of any country in the world, and that justifies the actions that the Government have taken.

Following are the percentage increases:


Twelve months ended December
Food
All items


1969
6·4
4·7


1968
4·4
5·9


1967
2·6
2·5


1966
3·3
3·7


1965
3·1
4·5


1964
5·1
4·8


1963
2·2
1·9


1962
2·7
2·6


1961
1·9
4·4


1960
0·6 (decrease)
1·8


1959
0·5 (decrease)
Nil

Companies (Redundancies and Profits)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will take steps to ensure that the National Board for Prices and Incomes or the proposed Commission for Industry and Manpower automatically investigates the affairs of those firms where profits rise in the wake of large scale redundancies deliberately induced by the management.

Mrs. Castle: The movement of profits in relation to prices is one of the matters which may point to a need for a reference to the N.B.P.I. The basis on which it is proposed that references should be made to the Commission on Industry and Manpower is spelt out in the consultative document, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office.

Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the fashionable drive towards ever-bigger organisation, with all its rationalisation and so-called shakeout of labour, is motivated not necessarily by an urge for efficiency but simply by an urge for monopoly profits? Is it not time for this process to be investigated far more regularly and scrupulously by the body which she has in mind?

Mrs. Castle: One of the purposes of the Commission for Industry and Manpower, which we are proposing to set up, and about which we will shortly be introducing legislation, is to ensure that monopoly profits are not made at the expense of the consumer and that the public interest is safeguarded in a situation in which we are having larger and larger units of industry.

Shift Working

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and


Productivity in what proportion of the industries for which the Ministry of Technology is responsible is shift working normal practice; and how this compares with the same industries in the United States of America, West Germany and Japan, from information available to her from international sources.

Mr. Harold Walker: Shift working is practised in all the industries for which my right hon. Friend is responsible. Information available to my Department suggests that it is quite extensive in about half the industries concerned.
No information is available on which valid comparisons with practice in other countries can be based.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is it not true that as a result of this Government's policies a large part of our industrial capital is obsolescent and standing idle for half the time?

Mr. Walker: I have no information to show how our practices compare with other countries, though I accept that it is important to secure the maximum utilisation of capital equipment; that is, consistent with considerations of health, safety and welfare.

Industrial Training Boards

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity which of the industrial training boards have incurred a deficit on their annual income and expenditure accounts; and if she will state the amounts and the years concerned.

Mr. Dell: I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is the Minister of State satisfied with the efficiency of the financial management of these boards?

Mr. Dell: If the hon. Gentleman will bring to my attention any case which troubles him, I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while the concept of the Industrial Training Act is good, there is a growing impression that it is not being property managed? Is he

further aware that there is a general feeling that some training is going on merely to qualify for grant and that it is not really necessary?

Mr. Dell: I remind the hon. Gentleman that this Act was introduced by his hon. Friends. I would have thought that an important result of the Act, as administrated by this Government, has been the significant improvement in the quality of industrial training in this country.

Following is the information:


Industrial Training Board



Deficit year ended 31st March


1965 (5 Boards in operation)
£


Wool (now Wool, Jute and Flax)
2,566


1966 (13 Boards)



Carpet
428


Engineering
446,344


1967 (18 Boards)†



Carpet
12,453


Ceramics, Glass and Mineral Products
81,525


Cotton and Allied Textiles
3,067


Electricity Supply
4,493


Hotel and Catering
1,303


Knitting, Lace and Net
36,826


Man-Made Fibres Producing
1,176


Water Supply
53,861


Wool, Jute and Flax
65,757


1968 (21 Boards)



Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry
62,582


Construction
7,348,907*


Furniture and Timber
294,388*


Iron and Steel
656,803*


Rubber and Plastics Processing
2,814


Water Supply
193,048


1969 (26 Boards)



Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry
309,208


Ceramics, Glass and Mineral Products
136,241*


Construction
8,726,000


Engineering
635,332*


Food, Drink and Tobacco
2,610


Furniture and Timber
307,494


Gas
170,216*


Iron and Steel
240,808*


Knitting, Lace and Net
145,356*


Paper and Paper Products
4,400


Road Transport
2,518,393


Shipbuilding
42,918*


† Revised figures used from the accounts for year ended 31st March, 1968.


* These deficits were designed to offset surpluses in previous years. The Boards concerned were not carrying net liabilities at the dates shown.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Q.1. Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister whether he will initiate further studies by Departments on the effect of Great Britain joining the Common Market, in the light of the report of the Confederation of British Industry, a copy of which has been sent to Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The forthcoming White Paper about the effects of entering the E.E.C. will take account of the C.B.I.'s report.

Mr. Marten: May I express the hope that the Prime Minister's injuries are nothing more than superficial?
Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that any further studies into the question of Britain joining the Common Market will be supplemental to the White Paper, the publication of which should not be delayed beyond 16th February, in view of the strong suspicion that the original estimates were much higher than the Prime Minister liked and that the relevant Departments have been told to do their sums again?

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the preamble to his supplementary question.
The answer to the first part is that there will be no delay as a result of any further work that is being done. The answer to the second part and the suspicions of which he spoke is that he has been totally misinformed. There has been no question of our asking Departments to do their sums again.

Mr. Moonman: In welcoming my right hon. Friend back from the United States, may I ask him to comment on the question of the industry-by-industry growth sectors associated with Europe and state whether it would be possible to say whether, in the cost-benefit analysis that has been made, sufficient attention has been paid to the scientific value of our going into Europe?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to study the White Paper when it comes out. It is extremely difficult at this time to make an industry-by-industry analysis, but we

have the benefit of the C.B.I. analysis to help us in what we are doing.

Mr. Heath: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) in expressing sympathy to the Prime Minister following his fall.
The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that the White Paper would be presented quite early in February. While I appreciate the complications involved in producing the White Paper, is he aware that the more complicated the matter is the more important it is that public opinion should have the information? Can he, therefore, give a specific date for its publication?

The Prime Minister: I cannot at this moment give a specific date. There has been no further delay in the matter since I informed the House of our hope of presenting it by that time. The House has been told about some of the difficulties we had in December, when we had to wait for decisions to be taken in Brussels.
I wish to express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks at the beginning of his supplementary question.

MID-DEVELOPMENT AREAS

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination of the various Government Departments concerned with the problems of mid-development areas; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since North-East Lancashire has been given mid-development area status there has been a dramatic and welcome increase in the number of firms expanding and wishing to expand in the area? Is he aware, however, that the one danger we face is the potential shortage of skilled labour? Will he stay in close contact with his right hon. Friend the First Secretary about this matter?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Indeed, my right hon. Friend and I were in the North-East Lancashire area earlier this month. I agree that there has been an


improvement in the number of applications for i.d.cs., though until the legislation is through, if Parliament approves it, we shall not be able to see the full effects of the measure in relation to the incentives which will then be available to the area.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he will announce his policy for the non-mid-development areas?

Hon. Members: Answer.

UNITED STATES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official visit to the United States of America.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent discussions in Washington.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his recent consultations with members of the United States Administration.

Mr. Dickens: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with President Nixon during his recent visit to the United States of America.

The Prime Minister: I understand through the usual channels and following yesterday's exchanges in the House that it would be for the greater convenience of the House to answer these Questions now, and not cut unduly into the time available for today's debate by asking leave to answer them at the end of Questions.
I visted Washington accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, in response to the invitation extended by President Nixon during his visit to London last February. It provided a welcome opportunity of continuing the close relationship established at that time and renewed at Mildenhall last August, and of discussing a broad range of subjects of mutual concern, including the Middle

East, Vietnam, N.A.T.O., East-West relations, economic and political prospects in Europe, the international monetary situation, the British and United States responses to the Nigerian Government's requests for relief supplies, and a number of social problems common to our two countries. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend and I joined in a meeting of the National Security Council held under the President's chairmanship yesterday morning.
Before visiting Washington I also had useful discussions with the Prime Minister of Canada in Ottawa, and with the United Nations Secretary General in New York.

Mr. Winnick: The House will be grateful for that statement. Did my right hon. Friend tell the American President about the deep concern which exists in Britain over the massacre which is alleged to have taken place at Pinkville, which was not only tragic for the victims but harmful to American democracy, which I for one admire?
On Rhodesia, can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any truth in the Press reports that the American Administration will recognise the illegal regime? What about the consulate which the Americans have in Salisbury?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend would expect, we had a very full discussion on Vietnam. With regard to Pinkville, the President is aware of the strong feeling in this country and in his own country. It is one which he shares. On all these matters, I spoke in the terms of what I said in the debate in this House last December.
We discussed Rhodesia, but I have no statement to make. Obviously, I cannot make a statement on behalf of the United States Government. However, my hon. Friend will be well advised not to believe the rumours which have been spreading this week, about which he was obviously concerned in his Question.

Mr. Allaun: Did my right hon. Friend tell the President that if America reduced her troops in Europe we would not increase our forces there but, on the contrary, would reduce ours, too? As leading members of the United States Administration have suggested such troop reductions, can my right hon. Friend give us such an undertaking?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware of the statements made by leading members of the Administration about their intentions in the matter of keeping troops in Europe. The second part of his question, therefore, does not arise.
We were more concerned, as I am sure my hon. Friend is, with the policy of N.A.T.O. countries, which we would like to see reciprocated, in favour of a general reduction on both sides; in other words, mutually balanced force reductions. This offer has been made by the West, and we would like to see some response to it.

Mr. Blaker: Can the Prime Minister assure us that his celebrated memory is not failing? Is it right that, once again, he forgot to renegotiate the Nassau agreement?

The Prime Minister: There was no question of any loss of memory in this matter. Everything that needed to be done was done in my first talk with President Johnson in December, 1964.

Mr. Dickens: Following my right hon. Friend's conversations with President Nixon, what estimate has he made of the likelihood of a significant recession in the American economy and the steps which Her Majesty's Government should take to protect our economy against such an eventuality?

The Prime Minister: I had full discussions with leading Ministers, bank officials and others concerned with these matters. As every commentator finds, it is very difficult to form a clear impression of what is likely to happen, and even more difficult to sum it up in a few words. On the whole, I was encouraged by what I heard. As for the movement of interest rates, which would have a big effect on us, and the movement of raw material prices, which have inflated our import bill, it is difficult to make an estimate, particularly with the time-scale related to them. I heard nothing to suggest that we would be likely to expect a major effect on our exports in the near future.

Mr. Heath: Can the Prime Minister be more specific, especially on the size of United States forces in Europe, quite apart from international East-West negotiations? Did he secure any assurance about the size of the forces to be con-

tinued in Europe? Are they to be reduced, and, if so, over what time?
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was encouraged by the state of the American economy; but that might be interpreted in two ways by those who study his analysis. Can he be more specific? Are the Americans on top of their inflation?
Thirdly, what was the reply of the American Administration on the question of closing the American consulate in Salisbury?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first question, there was no attempt in the discussions to go beyond the public statements of Administration leaders in Washington about maintaining their troops through the middle of 1971. That was as far ahead as it was possible to look at the present moment.
With regard to the economy, it is hard for us and for them to be categoric about what is happening. However, there are a number of favourable factors which seem to be developing—favourable for us, for them and for the world—partly arising out of the progress which has been made in world monetary relationships and also in certain suggestions about the movement of world interest rates. It is not possible to be more specific than that.
As for Rhodesia and the consulate, that was covered by my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick). I am not in a position to make a statement on behalf of the American Government at this time.

Mr. George Brown: Will my right hon. Friend please make it clear that we have held the ring twice in the lifetime of most of us while the Americans decided that Europe was part of their concern? Will he, therefore, please make it absolutely clear, with reference to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), that this is part of the free world, and that if the Americans were to go out the consequences for them would be as bad as the consequences for us?

The Prime Minister: This point could be made if I thought that it was necessary to make it. I am satisfied that it is not. Within two or three weeks of


taking office, President Nixon showed his concern for Europe by immediately visiting a number of West European countries. The whole action of his Government since and the whole tenor of our talks, including our talks at the National Security Council, would have been immensely reassuring to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that we wish him a speedy recovery from his accident?
May I put two questions to him? First, in view of the dangerous trends towards increased arms supplies in the Middle East, not least from France, can we expect any joint or single initiative in relation to arms control?
Secondly, with regard to the international monetary situation, can we expect any initiative for a stabilisation and possibly the creation of a new reserve currency?

The Prime Minister: Dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's first question, he will know that the former Foreign Secretary at the time of the six-day war proposed a general international arms embargo to that area. It was not taken up by any of the other countries concerned. None of them responded to it. Since then, it has been more widely felt—and this was my impression in New York rather than Washington—that agreement on the substantive issues will have to come before we can expect anything in the nature of a general system of arms control. Both the United States Government and we have made clear our position in relation to arms shipments which disturb quantitatively or qualitatively the arms balance in the Middle East.
On the monetary question, there has been substantial progress, first, with regard to a world currency through the special drawing rights—we have to build on that and see how it works—and. second, in the settlement of a number of difficult issues, and there is much greater stabilisation now both as regards most international parities and also as regards what has happened to gold since the Washington conference of nearly two years ago.

Mr. Atkinson: During the discussions on economic affairs, did my right hon. Friend discuss multi-national corporations operating in Britain, particularly

those dominated by American capital? If we are to take a broad assumption from his remarks about the economy being encouraging, does it mean that he received some assurance that multi-national corporations in Britain would continue to expand at the rate they have in the last two years?

The Prime Minister: I have often answered Questions about the attitude of the Government to new American investment in Britain and the criteria we have followed, and always try to follow, concerning encouraging it here. Where there have been difficulties, these in the main rest within an area of subjects which are completely under the control of Her Majesty's Government. That has not entirely been the case, for example, with the recognition of trade unions by a very small minority of American firms. That is a matter on which we shall be discussing legislation in the near future.

Mr. Longden: Is there not another point of view from that advanced by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown)? Was the Prime Minister able to give any good and sufficient reasons to the President why the countries of Western Europe, consisting of about 250 million affluent people, cannot be responsible for their own self-defence without the aid of American troops?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that there would be general support for the view that those 250 million or 300 million people have a great deal to gain and to give to the world by greater political unity in this area. I do not, however, believe that the development of a separate defence capability outside N.A.T.O. would advance the cause of peace or the hope of easing tension.

Mrs. Renée Short: Did my right hon. Friend make any progress in discussions with the President about the possibility of a security conference? Is he aware that there is great concern here about the lack of progress on this matter? What can my right hon. Friend tell the House about these talks with the President?

The Prime Minister: We had some very full discussions on this question, and I think that we are in agreement about it. We would like to see a security conference, provided that it was genuine and properly prepared and wide-ranging in


the subjects for the agenda; not the short list which has so far been put forward. We, for our part, have ideas of a constructive character on this, and we are putting them to N.A.T.O. to see whether, if a conference is held, it has a good chance of success.

Mr. Sandys: Following on the earlier Question about N.A.T.O. forces, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the President gave any indication that in the long run—that is, after 1971—the American Government were, at any rate, looking to the European members of the alliance to bear a somewhat larger share of the burden of Western defence?

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss the situation as far ahead as that, for fairly obvious reasons. There are serious difficulties about forecasting the level of American forces at that time. But both of us were in agreement, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be, that the main hope of safely securing reductions is on the basis of mutually-balanced reductions.

Mr. Prentice: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether any discussions took place about helping the developing world? If so, was it mutually recognised that the aid plans of both the United States and Britain fall short of the recommendations of the Pearson Commission and also fall short of the current performance of many Western European countries?

The Prime Minister: I had a discussion with the President on this subject, but I had a much fuller discussion when I met the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Deputy Secretary-General in New York. We have debated this matter recently in the House, and the House has come to a decision upon it. While my right hon. Friend will not be satisfied with the kind of increase that we have made, he will be gratified to know that a substantial increase has been made in the last two or three months.

Mr. Farr: Did the Prime Minister ascertain the views of the President on the Government's intention to abandon our military presence in the Far East by 1971? If so, what were they?

The Prime Minister: The subject was not even discussed, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 2ND FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Export Guarantees and Payments Bill and of the Films Bill.
TUESDAY, 3RD FEBRUARY—Supply [9th Allotted Day]:
Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition Motion on Unemployment.
Afterwards, a debate on Smokeless Zones and Pollution, also on an Opposition Motion.
Motion on the Awards and Settlements (Temporary Continuation Standstill) (No. 3) Order, 1969.
WEDNESDAY, 4TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords] and of the Animals Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY, 5TH FEBRUARY—Supply [10th Allotted Day]:
Debate on a Motion to take note of the 8th Report from the Estimates Committee in Session, 1967–68, on Grants for the Arts and the related Departmental Observations.
Motion on the British Transport (Compensation to Employees) Regulations.
FRIDAY, 6TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 9TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Equal Pay (No. 2) Bill.
Motion relating to Sunday Cinematograph Entertainments in Runcorn.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is important business ahead. It would help on Thursday if hon. Members would forgo the pleasure of asking business questions unless they were very necessary.

Sir C. Taylor: In view of the unfortunate accident that the Prime Minister has suffered, and because he


travelled back from the United States only a short time ago, may I ask the Leader of the House whether we could have a subsidiary statement about all that the Prime Minister discussed with the President of the United States some time next week so that some of us can ask a few more questions? The time for such questions today was very short.

Mr. Peart: I cannot promise that.

Mr. Shinwell: May I direct the attention of my right hon. Friend to Motion No. 108,

[That this House deplores the criticism by the hon. Member for Bosworth on the Director of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Editor of The Times which contained the insinuation that their request for the utmost urgency in providing relief for the starving people in the area of the former Republic of Biafra was solely conditioned by their Roman Catholic faith and reminds hon. Members that criticism of persons on grounds of their religious faith is contrary to the established practice of the House.]

May I ask whether we can have a debate on this subject, to re-establish the principle that has never been changed in the, House over the years, namely, that religious issues should never be introduced into political subjects when certain persons are mentioned?

Mr. Peart: I have seen the Motion in the name of my right hon. Friend. I cannot promise him a debate, even though I have sympathy with the main principle contained in the last few words of the Motion—
criticism of persons on grounds of their religious faith is contrary to the established practice of the House.
I note what my right hon. Friend has said, but I cannot find time.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will the Leader of the House next week try to bring some consistency to the way that supplementary questions are answered? The right hon. Lady the First Secretary of State, in answer to Question No. 1, said that she could not deal with the supplementary although it flowed from what was on the Order Paper. Yet Question No. 2 had two supplementaries which had nothing whatever to do with the first Question and were obviously planted by

her hon. Friend, so upsetting the spontaneity of Question Time.

Mr. Pearl: The hon. Gentleman knows from his long experience, including that as a junior Minister, that this is the responsibility of the Minister.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the publication last week by the Minister of Technology of his Green Paper on Industrial Research in Government Laboratories, could not the Leader of the House kill two birds with one stone by having, in a debate on it, the long-awaited debate on defence research establishments?

Mr. Peart: I note what my hon. Friend has said, but there can be no debate next week.

Mr. Iremonger: Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Industrial Training Bill is likely to be debated? Will it be weeks rather than months?

Mr. Peart: I cannot give a specific date. As I always say, I cannot find time for that next week.

Mr. Albu: Will my right hon. Friend say when he intends to announce the setting up of the Select Committee on Expenditure, as recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure?

Mr. Peart: No, Sir, I cannot, but this matter is being carefully considered.

Mr. Amery: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect the White Papers on the Common Market and on Defence?

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement on this today in reply to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Wellbeloved: In view of the strong support from both sides of the House on the subject of last evening's Adjournment debate, will my right hon. Friend find time for an announcement next week by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, reprieving the Navy's rum ration?

Mr. Peart: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view. I note it, and I shall make representations.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on my Motion No. 104?

[That this House is of opinion that while a marina in or near Brighton is desirable the place authorised for the proposed marina at Black Rock was chosen without adequate scientific advice and is, in the opinion of yachtsmen, relevant experts and scientists, unsuitable and dangerous to ships and human life as being on a rocky, storm-swept lee shore without a protective river estuary or other appropriate coast indentation and is also without access roads, facilities or amenities, thereby involving the necessary construction of many new roads and the consequent destruction of dwelling-houses and also dangerous inconvenience to fire-brigades, schools, old people's, nurses' and other homes, all involving financial loss and burdens on ratepayers and residents; and therefore this House urges the Government to set up an expert and authoritative inquiry with a view to changing the marina site and amending or repealing the Brighton Marina Act 1968 so as to make it consonant with the safety, financial security and social benefit of the people of Brighton, the queen of seaside resorts, and others who appreciate its beauty and charms.]

My right hon. Friend will recall that when I asked him about this last week he said that I would have time to say all that I wanted to say when the Bill was introduced. My Motion refers not to the Bill, but to the repeal of an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Peart: Not next week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Peart.]

SUPPLY

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

[First Part].,—considered.

HOUSING

Mr. Speaker: May I announce that I have selected the Amendment in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and some of his right hon. Friends.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I beg to move,
That this House, deploring the fact that the number of houses completed in 1969 fell by 46,922 to 366,793, condemns Her Majesty's Government for failing to fulfil their election promises of 500,000 houses a year by 1970 at lower cost with cheaper mortgages.
The housing figures published earlier this week show the biggest drop in housing completions for any year since the war. They also show the biggest drop for the number of houses started, and today there are fewer houses under construction throughout the country than there were when the Labour Government came to power in 1964. This is against the background of a party which probably gained more votes at the last General Election on the question of housing than on any other issue.
The situation of the industry is very serious. Housebuilders have recently said in their report that the industry is passing through a recession as severe as anything since the 'thirties, and a recent survey of builders showed that of the number of firms surveyed 49 considered that they would start more houses in 1970 than in the past year, and 236 firms considered that they would start fewer.
It is against that background that recently a number of meetings have taken place in Whitehall to discuss ways of boosting the industry, and particularly housebuilding. We had the remarkable situation of the Minister of Works, after receiving a letter from the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, saying how alarmed architects were at the enormous drop in housing orders and schemes that it was working on, calling a meeting of builders. At the end of the meeting the Minister of Works said that he shared somewhat the concern ex-


pressed, and that he would report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the facts about the state of the housing industry.
We must ask the Minister what he has been doing for the last 12 months, for constantly throughout that time representations have been made not only to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but to the Chancellor himself, pointing out the severity of the decline in the building industry.
I must give the warning that if this decline is allowed to continue for much longer the time that will be needed to bring the industry back to its full volume of potential activity will be very considerable. A number of the smaller firms —many of them old-established—are going bankrupt and out of business. There is also considerable unemployment in the building industry. Men may leave the industry forever, and there will be considerable labour problems in the future.
I should like to begin the debate by suggesting a 10-point programme to the Government by which they can start to remedy the errors and omissions of the last 12 months.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would it not be a good way to start the debate by referring to the fact that there is a remarkable lack of interest in this subject among hon. Gentlemen opposite? Many of them have left the Chamber. The benches opposite are nearly empty.

Mr. Walker: If one reads the election addresses of hon. Gentlemen opposite, one can imagine a certain amount of embarrassment for them when this topic is discussed.
I suggest to the Government that there are 10 positive courses of action which can be taken. First, as regards the application of the credit squeeze, the position in the building industry is now such that it should be taken out of the neutral zone and put into that zone which needs some priority attention from the banks, for unless this is done an increasing number of firms will go out of business.
Second, the import deposit scheme, which has a particularly adverse effect on the prices of imported plywood and timber, should be ended, for it is severely affecting the building industry.
Third, the Government should cease their discrimination against the building industry in respect of the S.E.T. At the moment, the industry has to pay £125 in S.E.T. alone per person employed. We on this side of the House are pledged to abolish the S.E.T., and in our mention of the value added tax we have made it clear we shall see that this does not discriminate against housebuilding as the S.E.T. does.
Fourth, the Government should revise the mortgage option scheme to ensure that there is far more flexibility, and that those who originally entered the scheme can get out of it far quicker than they can under the Government's present proposals.
Fifth, the Government should ensure that the 100 per cent. mortgage scheme is revised so that it does not apply purely to those on low incomes, but also to those on tolerably good incomes, but without capital resources.
Sixth, the Government should bring local authority mortgages back to the level which they inherited when they came to power. When Labour came into power, £179 million a year was provided by the Conservative Government in local authority mortgages. These mortgages were going particularly on older properties, and to assist people in the lower income groups. These figures were slashed by the Labour Government, and, although they have announced that for 12 months beginning in March of next year they will bring the figure up to £100 million, that is still a very long way below the level which they inherited when they came into power.
Seventh, the Government should look at the whole question of housing subsidies and revise them, in negotiations with local authorities, so that the subsidy goes to those in need of help and assistance, and is not disposed of indiscriminately throughout the whole housing sector.
In view of the Government's Amendment, by which they endeavour to give the impression that the Conservative Party is against the public provision of housing, I wish to make our position about council housing perfectly clear. We believe that there is a rôle for the public sector to play, particularly in helping the urgent problem of the homeless, and unlike the Labour Party, we will redefine the whole position of homelessness.
We also believe that there is a considerable need for housing for the elderly, but what we consider to be completely wrong is a system of subsidies whereby a great deal of the money available goes to people in no need of help or assistance at all. Therefore, under our revision of the subsidy system, more help will go to the homeless, to the elderly, and to those in need, and less to those who can well provide a home of their own; and to this extent we shall encourage them to become owners of the houses in which they are now tenants.
Our eighth proposition is that much more should be done to stimulate housing societies and housing associations than has been done under this Government. As a result of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), they inherited a situation where the housing society movement, a voluntary movement, was enthusiastic and expanding at a fast rate. We have only to read the recently published annual report of the Housing Corporation to recognise how that position has deteriorated. I need only quote the figures of schemes approved over the last three years. In December, 1967, it was 247, in the year ended December, 1968, it was 138. In the first quarter of 1969 it was a miserable 14. The whole housing society movement has been undermined by the Government's policies.
Our ninth proposition is that the Government should immediately scrap the Land Commission and the betterment levy, which have proved to be a handicap to the progress of the building programme, and which have done nothing to bring down land prices, but which have done just the opposite.
Finally, we believe that they should take swift action in seeing that in the major towns and cities an adequate housing advisory service is provided so that people who wish to obtain advice on how to contact a housing association, how to undertake home ownership, or how to present their case to a local authority can obtain impartial, speedy and objective advice.
There are 10 positive stages which if the Government would adopt even at this late stage would start an improving trend in our housing situation. Whatever action

is taken by the Government one thing is perfectly clear, and that is that they will go to the electorate at the next General Election having failed in every promise they made on the subject of housing.
To put the matter into its correct context, I do not think that I could do better than to quote the words of the Prime Minister during an election speech at Bradford in 1966, when he said:
We need hospitals, we need schools, we need roads, we need new towns and cities, but most of all we need homes. Housing in the New Britain comes first.
Who would have thought, listening to that speech, that five years later, this House would be debating a Motion during which we would discover that the number of houses completed last year was less than in the two years before the Prime Minister made that speech?
The Labour Party promised 500,000 houses a year. It said that it would bring down the price of housing and the cost of mortgages. Looking at the history of the 500,000 houses target, we must first of all look at the categoric promise of the Prime Minister that this was not "a promise lightly given, but a firm pledge". It was, he said, a pledge that would be fulfilled no matter what the circumstances, no matter what the difficulties.
When, now, the Minister of Housing, as he repeatedly does, pleads that a credit squeeze and the economic situation are the reasons for the failure to fulfil this promise, he is completely going against the firm pledge of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did revise his forecast, but only recently.
At the time of devaluation there was no revision of the target. To quote the Prime Minister at the time of devaluation, he turned to this side of the House and he said:
We are cutting public expenditure—including the capital outlay on the nationalised industries. There will be cuts in local authority expenditure … But while, in crisis, programme after crisis programme announced by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, local authority housing, school building—and their mini-programme for hospitals—were cut, the housing programme, the school building programme, the hospital building programme, will continue to expand in accordance with the priorities we have laid down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November 1967, vol. 754, c. 1341.]


At the time of devaluation the Prime Minister was adamant about continuing the target. Then we come to a period later when he was challenged about the figure at Question Time. He was asked by how much the figure would be reduced and he said that it would be reduced by 16,000 in each of the two years. The Prime Minister is last on record with a target for 1970 of 483,000 houses. That is the last we have heard from him, other than speeches in America, on this topic.
As for the Minister of Housing, he reluctantly began to agree that the 500,000 was not possible. When, at the end of 1968, he was able to announce the completion of 418,000 houses—and he obviously made the most of the figure—he was rather surprised that we on this side of the House started a series of debates., pointing out the failure of the Government's housing policy. The interesting thing is that throughout the early months of 1969 the Minister of Housing was completely and utterly complacent about the trend for 1969.
We on this side pointed out that the number of starts in 1968 had dropped by 53,000. The right hon. Gentleman turned to almost every excuse. On one occasion he said that weather in February was not too good for starts. He pointed out that the number of tenders coming in was very encouraging and as late as May, when asked about the 1969 figures, compared with 1968, he concluded his remarks by saying:
Overall, I do not expect any dramatic change in 1969 compared with 1968."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT: 6th May, 1969; c. 238, Vol. 783.]
As late as May the Minister, in spite of the fact that the whole of the house-building industry, Her Majesty's Opposition and local authorities were all warning the Government of the dramatic drop likely to take place in housing, contented himself with the fact that the housing figures for 1969 would be somewhat similar to those in 1968.
Month by month the figures have become worse and now we know, not only the alarming fact that the housing figures for last year are lower than in 1964 and very much lower than the Government's target, but also we know that we are faced with the fact that in all probability thin year's completions will be lower than 1969.
The Labour Party has estimated next year's figures at 360,000—6,000 lower than this year. If we take the Labour Party figure, as put out by it in a brief, we have a shortfall for the number of houses completed by the end of this year compared with the Government's target of 329,000. These are houses that the homeless and young couples looking for a home could reasonably have anticipated from the Government's election promises. This is the extent of their failure there. Then there is the interesting basis on which they excuse themselves. The most remarkable excuse was made earlier this week in a short debate that took place on the Consolidated Fund Bill. when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave as his defence of these appalling figures—to use his own words:
In so far as we have fallen short, we have fallen short of the standards which we set ourselves as a Labour Party.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): Finish it.

Mr. Walker: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman went on:
We have not fallen short, nor are we falling short, of the standards supposedly set by the party opposite.
I would use different words here, "In so far as we are falling short, we are falling short of the promises we made to the electorate." To fall short, having obtained very large numbers of votes on this subject, is a warning. We must remember this if they make any future promises, we must remember that they are not giving promises. It is like the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown). His 3 per cent. mortgages were not a promise, they were, he says, a hope. We have these broken promises.
The next defence of the Parliamentary Secretary was that the Tories had not fulfilled their promises about housing. Here he showed a remarkable naivety on the figures. First, he quoted the 300,000 target that we had originally given in 1951. The Prime Minister had something to say about that target. In the 1951 General Election address, when the Tories were promising 300,000 houses, he said:
The Tory housing policy is an electoral trick, a cruel deception on those who are


waiting for a house. They know they cannot achieve it.
But they did achieve it.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in the debate I have mentioned, said:
If the hon. Gentleman will check the record, he will find that in only a minority of the years during which his party was in office was that figure achieved or exceeded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th January 1970; c. 1314–5.]
He went on to say that in it was four or five of the 13 years. Why not be exact? The housing statistics are published by the Government and, if we exclude 1962, of the 12 remaining years in 10 of them we achieved our target.

Mr. Freeson: The number of years, apart from the General Election year, 1964, was six out of the 12.

Mr. Walker: It is easy for the public to decide which is correct. The housing statistics are published and the hon. Gentleman has made clear what he means, as reported in c. 1316 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. We can leave it for the Press to analyse. When it does so, we expect an appropriate apology.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: While not accepting his figures, will the hon. Member say why, on two occasions, hon. Members opposite fell short on the figures? Was it because the housing problem has been solved, or were the Tories leaving it to the housing associations?

Mr. Walker: The great contrast between the two parties is that in 1951 we inherited a housing programme in sharp decline and in 1964 the Labour Party inherited a programme which was on the increase. In 1970, we shall inherit a programme which is sharply in decline.
The Government make the excuse of Ronan Point having an adverse effect on these figures. They cannot have it both ways. In one breath they say that it is Tory local authorities—

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Hear, hear.

Mr. Walker: Do not say, "Hear, hear" too readily. We have your election address here.

Mr. Speaker: I did not have one.

Mr. Walker: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, you ought to be congratulated.
The manner in which the Government have handled Ronan Point certainly has handicapped local authorities in getting on with their housing programmes. Several hon. Members opposite know full well that the delay, dithering and vacillation on the Ronan Point question is a criticism of the Government which is not to their credit. There is no doubt at all that virtually all the fall in the number of houses completed is in the private sector, not the public sector. It is only by keeping the public sector on a tolerably high level that they have sustained any programme at all.
The latest published figures, local authority by local authority, are for September, 1969. If we take the number of council house starts in the 12 months ended September, 1969, we find that the situation is that Socialist-controlled local authorities have dropped back by 16–76 per cent. and the remaining local authorities have dropped by 13 per cent. So on no criteria is there an advance on this aspect. It shows the smug complacency of the Government that when the housing programme is primarily dropping in the private sector they endeavour to try to suggest that it is some Tory local authorities which are undermining their programme.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: May I enlighten the hon. Member with a practical example in respect of the London Borough of Havering, which is primarily controlled by Conservatives? There, the programme is falling. Last year, the council built a dozen houses, although there were 4,000 people on the waiting list.

Mr. Walker: I could choose Socialist-controlled authorities, but looking at the national programme we have this situation.
The second major promise of the Government was on the question of the price of houses. Here again, we can find a multitude of promises. These were in the election manifesto and in most election addresses of hon. Members opposite. The Prime Minister toured the country speaking about the price of houses. The facts are now known. During the years of Conservative Government from 1961 to 1964 the average price of a new house


rose by less than £1,500. During the five years of Labour Government it will have risen by more than £1,500. The average price of a new house will have gone up from less than £3,500 to nearly £5,000. That is their record on the price of houses.
If one examines the average price increase one finds a series of Government proposals, selective employment tax, the import surcharge, the import deposits scheme, Bank Rate and the betterment levy, all positive measures which have put up the price of houses. The effect has been both on houses in the public sector and in the private sector. Although there is a subsidy in the long term, during the building period there no subsidy. The steep rise which has taken place in the price of houses has placed many local authorities in a position in which they are faced either with providing houses with a considerable increase on the rates, or, alternatively, of charging rents beyond the means of tenants.
The effect on improvements, which the Government mention in their Amendment, relates to the Housing Act, which both sides of the House tried to improve. If the Minister looks back and compares this with 1964, taking into consideration interest rates on the balance which has to be found by the owner and the increased cost of building repairs, he will find that the situation today is no better titan it was in 1964. The price of houses has dramatically increased.
Finally, we come to the question of mortgage interest rates. The promises were specific and were mentioned in virtually every election address of hon. Members opposite. The facts are clear for all to see. There are two alternatives when mortgage interest rates are raised. One is to extend the period of the mortgage, and the other is to increase the payment. On an 80 per cent. mortgage over a 25-year period, on the average-priced new house in 1964 there was a monthly repayment of £18 6s. If one wishes to buy an average-priced house today on the same basis the mortgage repayment would be £32 a month. So those who decide to pay the extra amount are, as a result of a Labour Government, paying £3 a week more in repayments.

Mrs. Renée Short: With better wages.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Lady, quite rightly, refers to wages. There is a relationship between wages and mortgage repayments because building societies will make advances only if the weekly wage is equal to the monthly repayment. In 1964, the mortgage repayment was £18 6s. and the weekly wage, £18 10s. Therefore, in 1964, the average industrial wage-earner could afford to pay the average price for a new house. Today, wages have gone up to £23 10s. a week, but the mortgage repayment has gone up to £32 per month.
There is, of course, the alternative of prolonging the period of the mortgage If the period of the mortgage is prolonged, a person who took up a 20-year mortgage in the month in which Labour came to power and decided, instead of increasing the repayments, to extend the period, he would be in the happy position that after repaying his mortgage for five years under the Labour Government, instead of now having 20 years in which to continue payments as at the start of the mortgage he would have 26 more years in which to pay. So, after five years of a Labour Government, he is six years further behind than was the position when Labour came to power.
On every one of the basic promises made to the electorate the Labour Party has failed. It has been suggested that we on this side, in circumstances of broken promises such as these, should be thinking of the position of the Minister responsible. In fairness to the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, he cannot be accused of being responsible for all that has happened. It was not the Minister of Housing who introduced S.E.T. It was not the Minister of Housing who increased interest rates. It was not the Minister of Housing who made the building industry suffer the longest credit squeeze imposed in history. It obviously was not the Minister of Housing who took housing out of the Cabinet. Therefore, in all of the basic priorities of the Government, housing has lost. The Government gained many votes, particularly among the young and homeless, on their housing promises; on all these they should be judged.
There is no better conclusion, after looking at the housing figures, than to refer to the remarks made in a housing debate in March, 1966, by the present Patronage Secretary, who ended his speech with these words:
I want the country to look at the number of houses which we have built, the efforts we have made and are making to ensure that we achieve our realistic target of 500,000 houses by 1970, and our determination to do what is necessary for the people in greatest need. I ask no more than that the country pass its judgment on that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March. 1966; Vol. 725. c. 2177.]
I ask the same.

4.12 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
congratulates Her Majesty's Government upon the fact that the nation's housing achievement in both the public and private sectors since October. 1964 has been substantially greater than in the previous comparable period; deplores the efforts of Her Majesty's Opposition to dissuade local authorities from continuing to meet the problems of obsolescence and overcrowding; notes with approval Her Majesty's Government's record post-war achievement in the field of slum clearance; and welcomes the Government's policy for the improvement and modernisation of older housing".
At a time when, for the first time, more than half of the people in England and Wales are living in houses that they own, when a record number of slum dwellers have been moved into new homes, and when we have had the best five years' building that the builders have known, I certainly do not intend to accept the strictures of the Opposition. Indeed, neither I nor the public will believe the facile promises of what they would do if they were the Government. I believe that Satan rebuking sin would command respect, and even carry conviction, compared with right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
Some of the newspapers have said that the Shadow Cabinet was shocked by the figures. One Midland newspaper said that it took the Shadow Cabinet only a matter of minutes to decide to table a Motion of censure. The same lack of thoughtful consideration characterises many of the actions and speeches of right hon. Gentlemen opposite on housing. If there was a sense of surprise among right hon. and hon. Members opposite,

it must have been that the predictions made by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), in November, which I confirmed at the time, were so nearly accurate. They were certainly much more accurate than the potpourri jumble of statistics on housing starts and completions to which he treated us in the debate on the Gracious Speech.
First, let me put on record the figures for the year. Total completions were about 367,000, about 11,000 down on 1968. Public completions were about 185,000, about 3½ per cent. down. Private completions were about 182,000, about 18 per cent. down. Total starts were about 344,000, 13 per cent. down. Public starts were about 177,000, 9 per cent. down. Private starts were 167,000, about 17 per cent. down on 1968.
At the end of December about 432,000 houses were under construction. Although the hon. Member referred to that figure, it is most significant that it is almost exactly the same as the figure at the end of 1964, which right hon. and hon. Members opposite have always held out as evidence of the health of the housing situation when the Conservative Government left office.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: It is not only the number of houses under construction that must be considered. It is also necessary to consider how long it takes between starting and completion—a period which has considerably lengthened over the last five years.

Mr. Greenwood: It varies from time to time. I certainly would not accept a generalisation of that kind without qualification.
Before comparing the figures for the last five years with those for the previous five years, I want to put the figures into context. What the Opposition are doing today is not so much moving a Motion of censure on housing policy as on economic policy, the policy which has enabled Britain to move into the 'seventies with greater confidence and infinitely better prospects than would have been possible without the economic measures that the Government have taken.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: In view of the point the right hon. Gentleman is taking, why is there not a Treasury Minister on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Greenwood: Because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning and I are quite capable of dealing with problems in this field. We shall certainly ensure that the Chancellor knows about it if the hon. Gentleman makes a useful contribution to the debate.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have both outlined the very real progress that has been made. The hon. Member for Worcester referred to the Prime Minister's speech in the United States, in which he said:
We have increased the proportion of our national product going into export from 19½ per cent. to 22·4 per cent. This has meant al. the rigours of demand management, fiscal and monetary, stringent economies in Government expenditure…
I repeat, as I have said in the House before, that without a sound economy a large building programme just would not make sense.
The hon. Gentleman has talked about interest rates. The Opposition constantly say that they would bring down interest rates, but they are much less specific on how they would do it or how they would shield this country from the general high interest rates throughout the world.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer summed it up in the debate on the Gracious Speech when he said:
These high interest rates, though certainly not welcome, are not a British phenomenon. They are not a unique price which we are paying for getting our balance of payments right or for some alleged mismanagement in the past. The British Bank Rate is 8 per cent. The United States discount rate is 6 per cent.; the French Bank Rate is 8 per cent.; the Belgian 7½ per cent.; the German 6 per cent.; the Dutch 7 per cent.; the Swedish 8 per cent.: the Danish 9 per cent., and the Canadian 8 per Gent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1969; Vol. 790, c. 678.]
If one has that general upward trend in interest rates, the extent to which we can protect the building industry must be limited. We can protect local authority house building to some extent by the subsidy, as we have done, and we can cushion the home buyer both through income tax and the option mortgage scheme.
It is instructive, when hon. Gentlemen opposite are apparently blaming the Government for the situation here, to see

what has happened in the United States during the last year. I hope that hon. Gentleman opposite will have read—[Interruption.] I can understand that a lot of this is unwelcome to hon. Gentlemen opposite. In its issue of 12th January, Time says:
No major industry has ben hit harder than housing by Washington's fight against inflation. By tightening credit … over the pest 12 months starts of new homes and apartments have dropped by 25 per cent.
In the Architect's Journal for 7th January, an article is quoted from the New York Times which says:
…it is no longer possible to build homes that most Americans can rent or buy …
I think that people in this country will be interested to put the situation here in the context of what is happening in other countries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because they are fighting against inflation and have high interest rates with which to contend.

Mr. John Peyton: That is all very well, but what the right hon. Gentleman has failed to deal with is the point originally made by the Prime Minister, that this was not a promise but a pledge to be carried out in all circumstances.

Mr. Greenwood: We have had so many housing debates in the last year, and I have replied to that point so often, that I think that it would be tedious repetition for me to answer it again just because the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has not been here to hear what I have said on previous occasions.
Having put it into its international context, let us look at what has happened in the last five years compared with the previous five years. The average number of houses completed in this country in the last five years is 390,500 a year. Under the previous Conservative Administration, between 1951 and 1964, the average was 295,900, almost 100,000 a year fewer than we have achieved during our period of office.
Now, the question of improvement grants, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Conservative average of approvals was just under 64,000 a year compared with our 123,000, about twice the figure which they achieved.
If one takes slum clearance, one of the most vital issues, their annual average was 31,725, whereas ours is 85,570.
It is nonsense for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative benches to complain about our record when their record was so abysmal for so long.
I shall put the housebuilding figures in a rather different way. [Laughter.] All right. I have plenty of time. Let us take the five years of Labour Government and the five years of Conservative Government and let us look at the starts—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the Minister has in mind what you said about time when he says that he has plenty of time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is interesting, but it is not on a point of order.

Mr. Greenwood: Let us take, first, the question of starts in the public sector. They have gone up by nearly 33 per cent. since this Government took office. In the private sector they have gone up by 4½ per cent. The number of completions in the public sector is more than 40 per cent. up, and in the private sector 14½ per cent. up on what it was in the previous five years.
What hon. Members opposite cannot get away from is that during our period of office five houses have been built for every four in the last five years of their Government. There have been 7 million new houses built since the war, and 2 million of them were built under the present Government. It took hon. Gentlemen opposite 14 years to build 4 million houses. Under Labour, 2 million had been built in five years.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is obviously not giving way.

Mr. Greenwood: I have given way on a number of occasions, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) thinks that I should not extend the courtesy which I should otherwise have liked to do.
In the North-West, for example, the position shows a considerable improvement. In the case of starts, the increase has been more than 20 per cent., in the case of completions it has been 28 per cent., and in the case of slum clearance there has been an increase of 35 per cent.
Until recently, the figure for London was very satisfactory, and it was with great regret that on 21st January I read the statement put out by the Greater London Council which, talking of the years between 1969 and 1972, said:
… the minimum targets for starting homes during that period range from 7,250 to 6,750 a year.
In the next paragraph:
In the review the Committee point out that the targets for 1969 to 1972 are lower than those previously set for the period 1969–71 (8,500, 8.750 and 9,000 respectively)".
Nobody can do other than regret that the Greater London Council has lowered its sights in this way.
What has happened in the case of the six London boroughs which in 1969 put fewer than 100 dwellings out to tender? Greenwich put out 48; Ealing put out 30; Kingston upon Thames nil; Hammersmith nil; Harrow nil; Waltham Forest nil.

Mr. John Boyd Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. Is he aware that that authority, over the last few years, has had a conspicuously successful housing record, on which it has been congratulated by his own Department?

Mr. Greenwood: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the housing problems of the area are solved, I doubt that that view would be shared by many others.
This is, I believe, where right hon. and hon. Members opposite become genuinely confused about the figures. They assume that we are referring to completions in the past, when, in fact, we are looking at what is going into the pipeline at the moment. It is abominable that six London boroughs, despite all the pressure of housing problems in the Metropolis, should have put fewer than 100 houses out to tender this year.

Mr. John Page: I did not quite hear what the right hon. Gentleman said, bat I understood him to be repeating the Home Secretary's sick joke of 29th October last, that Harrow had no housing programme and no new houses under construction. The right hon. Gentleman ought at least to show the courtesy of having read some of the


letters from the mayor, telling him that he was talking utter tripe.

Mr. Greenwood: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said before taking up the time of the House. I said that Harrow had put no houses out to tender during 1969. In the circumstances, I am not surprised that the Mayor of Harrow declines to come to the Department 10 discuss it.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Mr. Anthony Grant (Harrow, Central) rose—

Mr. Greenwood: The House can get a view—

Mr. Grant: Mr. Grant rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Gentleman must not persist.

Mr. Greenwood: The House can get a view of the gravity of the situation in London best by realising that, if those local authorities had lived up to their responsibilities, they would have put 4,000 houses out to tender last year between them, together with the extra 2,000 which, I believe, the Greater London Council has failed to do.
There was a noticeable omission from the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester, namely, any reference to the leasehold situation which is of so much irnportance in so many parts of the country.
Recalling the Amendment which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I introduced to the Housing Bill last summer, the House will have been glad to see the account by the legal correspondent of the Daily Telegraph saying that
Prices at which leaseholders can expect to buy the freeholds of their homes under the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967 are now the lowest since the Act came into force. This follows a Government amendment to the Housing Act last summer.
What do we have from the Conservatives? We had a 10-point programme from the hon. Gentleman, which will merit the same consideration as one gave to his article in the supplement to The Guardian about a week ago. We had a speech from the right hon. Gentleman

the Leader of the Opposition at St. Albans on Tuesday night. I was a little saddened to see the Evening Standard comment in its leading article, that
Mr. Heath's speech last night was a ragbag of suggestions for social service reform—some seeming confused, to say the least".
I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman, and I thought that an unfair comment. As I read his speech, I thought that it had an antique charm—antique because he made so many proposals for things which this Government have done or are now doing.
I have here the gay hand-out from the Conservative Central Office. Let us take up two of the points which the right hon. Gentleman made. First:
… we shall make sure that voluntary housing associations are given help, both at national and local level, both with finance and with land, to carry on the excellent work they are doing to house the elderly.
I take it that the right hon. Gentleman was talking principally about old-style housing associations. Their figures have kept up encouragingly, and I pay tribute to the work of the voluntary housing movement. I praise the housing societies and the National Federation, because they are making a useful and specialised contribution. But I have done more than pay tribute. I have given them a great deal of practical help, help which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues failed to give when they were responsible.
In the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, I made the subsidy—which, in any case, is much more generous than the Conservatives ever provided—available to voluntary bodies for the buying of old properties for conversion and improvement. That meant that the price of a house as well as the cost of improvement and conversion ranked for subsidy. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman was not aware of that substantial help when he made his speech at St. Albans the other night.
In the 1969 Act, we raised the limit of the maximum amount upon which the voluntary bodies can in the normal way receive grant. We put it up to £1,250 for each flat provided in conversions of houses of three storeys or more. I have made known in London that I am prepared to exercise my discretion in accepting amounts up to £2,500 instead of £1,250.
I am far from clear, having read the right hon. Gentleman's speech and listened to the hon. Member for Worcester, what further help they think the voluntary housing societies need and what help they undertake to give them should they ever again become the Government.
Next, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said:
…we shall initiate a major drive to modernise and repair older houses so that the great fund of social capital invested in old houses does not go to waste. This should be done by extending and increasing improvement grants.
I thought that one of the most quaintly attractive of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions, for it is exactly what we have been doing under the Housing Act, 1969, providing a substantial increase in subsidies. Also, we have provided for environmental grant, something which right hon. and hon. Members opposite never did. It compares extremely favourably as a Measure with anything done during their period of office. Their years were not just years which the locust ate; they were years which the woodworm ate, because of their neglect of older property during that time.
I am happy to say that the 1969 Act has given a new impetus to house improvement, and that we have provided a more reasonable financial basis upon which it can take place. The response which we are having from local authorities is encouraging. We have already had 25 general improvement areas designated, which compared favourably with the pathetic results of the half-baked Act which the Conservatives introduced in 1964.
I do not know, from a reading of the right hon. Gentleman's speech at St. Albans, whether he proposes that improvement grants should be increased still further and so add to the vast sums which he proposes to dispense while at the same time saying that a Conservative Government would bring about a reduction in public expenditure.
What of other spokesmen for the party opposite? There was a lamentable speech by the hon. Member for Worcester, which is still on record. I have challenged him on it in the House before, and I have had no repudiation of what he said. I quote it again:

I hope that Conservative councils will take great care to resist the temptation to go on building council houses for all sorts of seemingly good purposes … New Conservative housing chairmen have a great tendency to prove to the Socialists that they can build even more council houses than their predecessors …".

Mr. Peter Walker: I have challenged the right hon. Gentleman before and do so again. Will he read the part in between, in which I stated my belief that they should concentrate on providing council houses for those really in social need?

Mr. Greenwood: I do not mind reading that passage. It will take up a little more time, however, for which I apologise. The hon. Gentleman said in that passage:
It has emerged during this conference that there is much under-occupation. It is therefore argued that councils should build a great deal of one-roomed accommodation. That is fine; I do not mind your doing that if when you move people out of the council houses and stop the under-occupation you allow people to come in and buy houses and reduce the council house area somewhere else.
I do not see how that passage helps the hon. Gentleman. One cannot avoid the impression that he wants Conservative chairmen of housing committees not to make the efforts which a number of them, to whom all credit is due, are making. I am happy to say that, in some of our cities, the Conservative leadership seems more statesmanlike than we sometimes find it in the House of Commons.
Another Conservative spokesman is the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I think that all of us derive a certain amount of satisfaction and fascination from studying the occasions when the Leader of the Opposition disowns the right hon. Gentleman. There is, first, a report in the Sunday Express of a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West last weekend. He told a meeting:
You can provide yourselves with cars, food, clothing, television sets and the rest.
Is there something peculiarly wrong that you say you cannot provide yourselves with houses?
There is something peculiarly wrong—and I will tell you. Your rents have been too low for too long.
That has not been repudiated by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a point


of view. We all respect the point of view that the right hon. Gentleman holds.

Mrs. Renée Short: No.

Mr. Greenwood: We all respect the genuineness of his views, shall I say?
We are entitled to ask whether the view expressed in that passage is also that of the Conservative Party. I will quote from a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in addressing the Wolverhampton and District Branch of the Federation of Master Builders on 6th January. He said:
What are we waiting for? Why don't we all say: abolish rent control; abolish housing subsidies of every kind; and denationalise the existing stock of municipally-owned houses? Rents would then rise to market levels, like the prices ol the existing stocks of everything else, and the normal forces of price and profit could take over …".
Although other speeches by the right hon. Gentleman have been repudiated by the Leader of the Opposition, we are still awaiting a repudiation of that. There are times when, compared with Tory Party spokesmen, Marie Antoinette seems like a radical reformer with great experience of social problems.
This has not, from the point of view of right hon. Members opposite, been a very rewarding debate, but we on this side are grateful to them for enabling us to put on record our own achievements and to look briefly to the future. In the public sector, my colleagues and I have been making special approaches to a number of priority authorities whose future intentions do not seem to match up to the problems of obsolescence and over-crowding that still face them. Some at least, during the course of these discussions, have been able to see the situation in a more encouraging light. In addition, I have asked all local authorities in England to submit their revised slum-clearance programmes to me by the end of this month.
I do not promise a sudden improvement, for public authorities work to a long time scale. But we shall not relax until the decline shown in 1969 has been arrested and reversed. The private sector is much more volatile. Its decline in 1969 was about twice as sharp as the decline in the public sector, but it has shown itself in the past to be capable of picking up as quickly as it has

declined. If one were to assess the prospect simply by a study of the trade surveys undertaken by or in conjunction with the Builders and Building Materials Producers' Federation, one might suppose that the prospect for 1970 was not greatly different from the position in 1969.
But I urge a certain amount of caution about the surveys. They are necessarily based on the order book position of the federation's members and this makes them somewhat backward-looking.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe) rose—

Mr. Greenwood: I have lately heard from one or two substantial firms of house-builders and from a number of smaller builders that their order books are looking better than for some time, but, of course, it will take some time for such an improvement to work through into the trade surveys.
If, on the other hand, one looks at the general financial indicators, the prospect is more encouraging. The building society movement, to which, once again, I pay tribute, has been predicting an increase to about £1,700 million in gross advances in 1970. My colleagues and I have been able to increase the over all limit of local authority mortgage lending for 1970–71 from £55 million to £100 million. These two figures taken together open up the prospect of an injection of about an extra £200 million a year into the mortgage market. In addition, our option mortgage order, which took effect on 1st January, will reduce the interest burden on a large number of mortgagors of modest means.
I therefore offer the view, not as a matter of precise statistical projection but as of a point of general judgment, that the prospect for the private sector in 1970 is likely to be better than the situation in 1969 rather than worse. This optimistic view seems to be shared by the Council of the Federation of Registered Housebuilders, which, in its annual report, published this month, referred to the developments I have mentioned and said that they led to some improvement in 1969. It is because of our overall strengthening of the economy that I look forward to further developments of our housing policy—a high rate


of housebuilding, a speeding-up of slum-clearance and an intensification of our drive to turn old houses into new homes.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: The House will have observed that the Minister refused to give way when I rose. It is typical of him. I declare my interest as a builder. The Minister is quite prepared to try to persuade the House that the figures he presented are all right, but when faced with a practical builder he is not prepared to give way and let me explain to the House. I am, therefore, grateful that you have given me the privilege of speaking, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to houses in the United States and I began to wonder whether, following the Prime Minister's visit, we were going to become another State of the Union. What has that to do with the figures? My attempt to intervene was to remind the House that houses are not built overnight, that they do not grow like mushrooms. Local authority houses take from two to three years to complete. Private enterprise houses, if there is no credit squeeze on and funds are available for mortgages. can be built in half that time.
I invite the House to look at the Government's own housing statistics. In doing so, I ask hon. Members to put a three-year phase on in order to get the figures correct, because no one can deny that a house takes that long to build. So that the House might properly appreciate this factor, I set it down in graph form. I find that, in the first three years of the present Government's term of office, the number of starts rose, together with the number of houses under construction. But I also find that, once we met that watershed, where the fly-wheel of Conservative enterprise was reached, there was a downward trend.
The downward trend is much more serious than the right hon. Gentleman claimed. If one collects all these figures together, one finds that the graph of the number of starts has dropped since 1967, when it was 447,000, to 343,000. Completions have dropped from 413,000 to 366,000. These lines on a graph are parallel. That indicates to anyone familiar with the industry and graphs that housing completions this year cannot

possibly be the figure which the right hon. Gentleman has stated.
The figure the right hon. Gentleman quoted is yet another hollow promise. I challenge him—indeed, I bet him—that, if the Government are in power at the end of this year, which heaven forbid, the housing figure will not exceed 320,000, a drop of over 20,000. If any hon. Member disputes that figure, I remind the House that, six years ago, when my party was still in power, I drew attention to the very serious lack of mortgages. I was laughed at at the time, but proved to be correct.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) set out ten admirable points to show how we could restore the housing situation. I agreed with them all and I wish to emphasise one. This is the very serious effect which the selective employment tax is having on the housebuilding industry. I am sorry that the Minister of Public Building and Works is not here, because his own statistics, in Table 36, show the rise in the prices of new houses. Taking as a base line 100 in 1963, the latest available figure is 152 for 1969—over 50 per cent. increase.
Is there little wonder that it is difficult now to obtain mortgages and that local authorities are not prepared to start housing programmes? This is one of the main reasons for the housing setback. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that a higher salary is now required to buy a house on mortgage in order to meet the repayments. He said that the rise had been from £18 to £32 a week. That is one of the most definite factors in the situation.
The Government have let the country down on the supply and cost of land. If they want to attempt to fulfil their promises it is essential that they introduce legislation immediately to remove S.E.T. The Land Commission has led to a large increase in the price of land. Let the builders build, and they will get on with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that this is a short debate and that many hon. Members have indicated a desire to speak. I hope that they will emulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), and keep their contributions short.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: The nation and the House is today mourning the ending of one of the great traditions of our island home—the abolition of the rum tot in the Royal Navy. But there is no need for the House or the country to despair that another tradition, well known to us all, is about to depart.
After listening to some of the speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am sure that the tradition of the Conservative Party in pouring out hypocrisy by the bucket still stands. Also, having listened to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), who has departed, and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), I feel that Disraeli need not worry, mouldering in his grave, about the fate of that organised hypocrisy which we have on the benches opposite.
Scarcely a month passes without a right hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite putting down a Motion of censure on the Government. On each occasion we find that, as we examine the terms of the Motion and set it against their record while in office, the accusations they make against the Government are baseless. There could not be a better illustration than this Motion. For the party opposite, the traditional party of landlords, to complain about house-building and other housing policies of the Government, is the height of impudence. In putting forward their Motion my only complaint is that the Tories have devalued Ananias. We all know what is the solution to the housing problem of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We had in 1957 their notorious Housing Act which made Rachman and others of his ilk the patron saints of housing.
Anyone would think from the terms of the Motion, and from what the hon. Member for Worcester said, that the party opposite had a housing policy. Is thi5, true? It is right to say that there are many members of the Conservative Party who do not believe that a nation ought to have a housing policy. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—I am sorry that he is not in his place—said in addressing the federation of House Builders a few months ago:
My proposition is that there ought not to be a housing policy.

That is another of his statements which has not yet been repudiated by the Leader of the Opposition, and there is certainly evidence to show that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West commands far more support in the the Conservative Party than the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. Roebuck: It is reasonable to maintain that there are many hon. Members opposite, and certainly a majority of active Conservative Party people outside this House who believe that we ought not to have a housing policy.
My right hon. Friend the Minister and his hon. Friends in the Housing Ministry deserve congratulations for the many things they have done to help to solve the grievous housing problem which they inherited. I start with what they have done about environmental planning. This country is ahead of any other country in Europe, and certainly far ahead of the United States, in environmental planning. This is of considerable importance. It is not only the number of houses built which is significant; it is the nature of the houses and the surroundings in which they are built which is very important.
I turn to the Governments policy of converting old houses into new ones with very generous grants. They have done this for many houses—houses which were fit to live in but which lacked modern amenities, providing people with comfort. I much regret that there are many Conservative Councils which are not playing their part in letting people know of the availability of these grants.
As to owner-occupation we often have that weary old taradiddle from hon. Gentlemen opposite that ours is a party which does not believe in owner-occupation. The statistics prove that this is not so. We have built far more houses for owner-occupation during the period that we have been in power than hon. Gentleman ever built in a comparable period. In addition, my right hon. Friend has made it easier for those people in owner-occupation to remain there through rate rebates. He has also brought into the housing market, as a result of the option mortgage scheme. a large section of the community which formerly could not get in.
The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe was on to a good point when he referred to the lack of availability of mortgages; but it is absolute nonsense for hon. Gentlemen opposite to seek to divorce the mortgage position in this country, both as regards availability and interest rates, from what is going on in the world around us. We cannot insulate ourselves on this little island from movements elsewhere in the world.
I now have some good news for the hon. Member if he would like to hear it. In this evening's Evening News, page 5, column 1, there is the headline;
Mortgage hope for home buyers".
The story says:
The Building Societies Association had a large cup of cheer to offer would-be home owners today.
More money is coming into their members' coffers and less is going out. Gross receipts for 1969, and withdrawals, were the highest recorded for a single year.
It goes on to say:
Building societies received £701 million in new savings, a new high, and £419 million were withdrawn—the lowest figure since the last quarter of 1968.

Mr. Costain: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that exciting news, but does he appreciate that there are only three-quarters the number of houses that there ought to be?

Mr. Roebuck: I am sorry that my information has not brought an instant and joyful response from the hon. Member. During the whole of his speech he was grumbling about the private builder, and now here is some splended news which ought to have the builders putting up more houses.
Why is this good news? Because it proves that we are now getting over the difficulties left to us by the economic and financial policies of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They left us in a disgraceful mess.
It is not only a question of our having built more houses; they are also better houses, because my right hon. Friend has given considerable encouragement to an organisation of builders which guarantees the quality and standard of houses to the people buying them. I think that some 95 per cent. of all houses built

now are built under this scheme. If my right hon. Friend has put shackles on any builders it is the jerry builders, and I am convinced that his action will be warmly applauded not only by my hon. Friends but by many of the young couples who hope to move into these new houses.
I turn now to council houses, about which we have heard a lot of nonsense from the hon. Member for Worcester. When this Government drst took office I recall that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, then the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, went on a tour of the London boroughs to try, with those qualities for which he is well known of cajolery and bullying, to get them to build far more houses.
To a considerable extent he was successful. He was successful in my borough of Harrow, and he encouraged the council to build far more houses. Since that time there has been an unfortunate change in the control of many councils—not in Harrow, but in Harrow we now have a council with only one Labour Party representative. This bas had a considerable effect on the nature of my borough council's housing policy, and in other parts of the Greater London area where there has been a change of representation, the councils have cut back council house building.
Why is this? Is it some sort of spontaneous action by all these Conservative Councils to cut down their house-building programme? I suggest that it is nothing of the sort; they have received a diktat from the Daleks at Conservative Central Office; and, being Conservative councillors, being men who lack independent minds, they are always prepared to accept the diktats from Central Office.

Sir Douglas Glover: Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk) indicated dissent.

Mr. Roebuck: The hon. Member for Ormskirk challenges me, but we have already heard the words of the hon. Member for Worcester on this. If the hon. Member did not hear them I will repeat them. The hon. Member for Worcester said:
I hope that Conservative Councils will take great care to resist the temptation to go building Council houses for all sorts of seemingly good purposes.


It, is quite clear that those words have gone home to Conservative councillors throughout the country.
Another reason is that they are all rather worried that in the odd event of a Conservative Party ever being returned to power they will not get their M.B.E.s or O.B.E.s if they disobey the hon. Member for Worcester. We all know that the hon. Member got his M.B.E. for his sterling services to the Young Conservatives organisation. It is a point which Conservative councillors take very seriously indeed.
My right hon. Friend says that some councils have cut down, but I say that this is not the case in Harrow. There they have not just cut down, they have no policy at all to build council houses. Does the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) wish to challenge that statement?

Mr. Grant: Yes. I know that the hon. Member wishes to be fair—[Laughter.]—on second thoughts, I am not certain of that. But if he had wished to be fair he would have revealed to the House that, sc far from having no programme at all, the council has 362 houses planned for next year and has told the Ministry about it.

Mr. Roebuck: Sadly, the hon. Gentleman is in error, as usual. I am in a position to reveal that in August, 1968. the council of the London Borough of Harrow resolved—by resolution in the council chamber—not to build any more dwellings; and, more than that, to dispose of the land that it had acquired upon which to build council houses. The hon. Gentleman ought to check his facts before he inflicts such nonsense on the House. Have we some other interruption from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page)?

Mr. John Page: It is boring for the rest of the House to have to listen to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) trotting out a lot of inaccurate information. No council land has been sold in the recent past for building other than council building. There has been some land allocated to housing associations.

Mr. Roebuck: I do not propose to pursue the inaccuries of the hon. Gentleman. I will simply conclude—

Mr. John Page: Answer.

Mr. Roebuck: —by saying that the mayor of Harrow, who rejoices in the name of Alderman Clack—has refused to see my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to discuss Harrow's programme. I believe that the position is the same in Conservative councils throughout the land and I thought it appropriate to bring this matter to the attention of the House.
What we have here is clear evidence that colleagues of hon. Gentlemen opposite are busily at work in the boroughs seeking to sabotage the housing programme. Then we have hon. Gentlemen opposite coming here and seeking to berate the Government for the housing figures—and of course we must expect much more of this as time goes on.
The party opposite is frantic for power and that is why it behaves in this manner, as though hon. Members opposite are under the influence of some deleterious drug. They will seize any stick available to try to beat this Government. On this occasion, as on so many others, that stick will turn into a boomerang and give hon. Gentlemen opposite a hefty clout about the ear.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Wallace Lawler: I shall not seek to comment on the remarks which have been made about the drop in housebuilding or the figures of starts. The public is not so much interested in the exchange of statistics between the various sides of the House, but is looking for constructive proposals to increase home building and to lower costs.
The Minister has said, obviously in defence of the lamentable fall in house-building, that if we produce 370,000 houses a year until 1973 we shall have a surplus of homes. If this is so, it will be a crude kind of surplus, including a large number of hovels long designated as "unfit for human habitation". In my own area there are still a few thousand of this type of hovel, most of which are not scheduled for demolition until after 1974. This is in the City of Birmingham in which, despite Tory control, a record number of dwellings has been completed in the public sector in recent years.
It is important to appreciate that in large cities such as Birmingham the slum clearance programme is dictated, by and large, by the number of new dwellings that one is able to build. On the present dismal figures of construction, with ever-soaring costs and higher and higher interest charges these types of hovels, which nobody would call homes, will remain with us marking the shameful betrayal of the 1964 Socialist election promise that there would be enough houses for many years to come. The Prime Minister won the last election with a firm pledge of 500,000 homes by this year. Equally there was the same kind of carrot held out in regard to assisting the growth of home ownership with lower interest rates. Both have proved to be high pie-crust promises made to be broken.
The worthlessness of the first promise is aptly revealed by the figures which are before us this week. The nonsense of the second promise about low interest rates is illustrated by the countless home owners who struggle to meet a more than doubled interest rate on housing loans, plus the millions who still find themselves outside the scope of home ownership.
There are many very disquieting features about the dismal fall in the provision of new homes, among them the incredible jump in the price of land since the present Government came to power, and the abject failure of the much-boosted and over-costly Land Commission to arrest these savage increases.
Here I would mention a reference to the price of land by a Government spokesman in the housing debate on 15th May, 1969, when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales mentioned land taken from those people who owned their homes in Cardiff and later sold by the Conservative corporation to private developers at enormous places. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that land acquired by some of our large local authorities on payments of a few pounds per site—a system that I describe as legalised robbery—or again in the new development areas on most preferential terms is charged by such authorities, authorities under both Socialist and Conservative control, to municipal housing revenue accounts and

to non-profit housing associations at the same kind of enormous profit
I can, if required, produce case after case to prove this. It would be helpful to know if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister approves of these kinds of enormous land profits being imposed upon municipal tenants and members of housing associations for the land upon which their homes are built.
Secondly, there is the constant bogy of higher building costs, helped along to the tune of some £125 per dwelling by the iniquitous selective employment tax. The Government have continued to turn a deaf ear to our continued pleas for the removal of a tax which should never have been imposed upon any section of home building and which only adds to already high rents and mortgage repayments.
Since the present Government came to power building costs in the provinces, and certainly in Birmingham, have soared by nearly 34 per cent. This is one of the reasons why the chairman of one large authority said yesterday that this year he will fell obliged to cut back on his corporation's housing target by 1,500 homes. This is a grim outlook for the Minister if he wants to retain even his total of 370,000 for 1970.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, there is the shockingly high rate of interest charges. Unless there is a drop in the present high rate, Birmingham, for example, faces a record deficit of £3½ million on its municipal housing account for 1970–71; and this despite the considerable slice of taxpayers' money which the Government hand over to keep part, and I stress part, of the general level of applicable interest charges at 4 per cent.
The Government talk about wanting more homes built in the private and public sectors. Because of the foregoing reasons, the penalty attached to building more homes is higher and higher rents and, in the private sector, higher and higher mortgage payments. With urgency, we need some entirely new avenues of thought and action in housing.

Mr. Greenwood: When we last debated this matter the hon. Gentleman appeared to think that it was right to lower the standards of council house building and apparently to abandon


Parker Morris. I asked if this was the policy of the Liberal Party, and he did not seem to know. Does he now know whether it is official Liberal policy?

Mr. Lawler: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has raised this point. What I said in that debate, and have since made perfectly clear, is that there are certain types of houses where we could lessen a little the existing standards—for example, homes occupied by one person which have two inside toilets.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Could the hon. Gentleman give an example anywhere in Britain in which accommodation for one person is being built with two toilets?

Mr. Lawler: I have already replied to the point, and I will continue with what I was saying.
A tremendous total of £620 million per annum is being poured from the Exchequer into the various forms of housing subsidies—£340 million to the public sector, including supplementary benefit payments towards rents, £220 million to owner-occupiers, including supplementary benefit payments of some £20 million, and £65 million in supplementary benefit payments to private tenants.
There is a strong case for an all-party Select Committee to be set up to review the whole of these payments and other relevant factors, and perhaps to consider a new form of distribution with, of course, the priority retention of the necessary assistance to the needy, the aged and the growing number of families who, as revealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently, struggle along either just above or just below the poverty line.
I agree with the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) who has previously suggested that housing should be taken out of party politics. I also agree with him that we could do so much more to develop the provision of housing through housing societies and associations.

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has just called for a Select Committee on housing. I am inclined to agree with him. But does he recognise that there is in existence an all-party Select Committee called the

Select Committee on Estimates which recently investigated housing and on which the Liberal Party refused to serve?

Mr. Lawler: I am quite aware of that. It does not invalidate the point that I shall go on to make, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to pay attention to what I am going to say. Privately-rented tenancies continue to drop year by year. Between 1967 and 1968 alone, the reduction, taking the combined total of controlled and unfurnished tenancies, was in the region of 230,000. This drop is significant and compares with the total of all new houses built in the public sector during the same year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has made it clear that we can expect this heavy drop to continue. The landlord, as compared with the local authority, is unfavourably placed. A new house built by a private landlord would demand more than twice or even thrice the rent which a local authority charges for the same type of house.
I suggest another urgent issue which an all-party Select Committee could consider. Why should not local authorities. working in conjunction with housing societies and associations under the terms of the Housing Bill of 1969, take over a large part of the responsibility for the remaining 4 million privately tenanted dwellings? Furthermore, why should not local authorities who are able to acquire land at preferential cost be helped by Ministerial consent, or if necessary by legislation, to make such land available in suitable proportions to municipal housing revenue accounts, to non-profit-making housing societies and associations, and perhaps even to reputable avenues in the public sector which would undertake not to make a profit on such land, at prices a little over those of acquisition cost. Even in the present state of high building costs, this could help to avoid the present scale of rent rises in the public sector and to scale down the constant rises in the private sector.
In the area I represent we found a way of operating a pilot scheme in a manner approaching this. It was beginning to work very well, until the Tories came to power and promptly stopped it. Yet, in the interim, over 1,000 extra families, most of whom were on the housing register, were housed at lower


costs and without any continuing subsidy. Here is yet another important avenue waiting to be explored by the suggested all-party Select Committee.
Excessive dampness, condensation, is yet another matter calling for urgent attention by this as yet non-existent Committee. Millions of tenants in relatively new and costly dwellings would bear testimony to this. An interesting publication I have seen today from I.C.I. says
There is no longer a technical problem in eliminating condensation from existing houses".
I know from other hon. Members that leading firms in the country share this view. Yet local authorities hold back because of their fear of embracing further capital spending. This policy may well be penny wise and pound foolish. I have seen examples, as I am sure have other Members, where hundreds of pounds have to be spent on dwellings which are only a few years old. This points to how much we need some kind of all-party committee, which I hope the Minister will set up as quickly as possible.
We in the Liberal Party approach with some caution the suggestion of a national housing agency designed to take over both the building and management functions at present operated by local authorities. There might be some advantage if such a national agency confined itself to construction, but not to management. Management must never become too remote from tenants.
We feel that there may well be financial and social benefits to be gained from some similar forms of regional housing agencies where in many cases system-building of the right kind of homes could be deployed more widely, producing a lower level of costs. We shall vote for the Opposition Motion because we believe that much more could and should have been done, even in the face of the admitted financial difficulties, to increase the weight of provision of homes.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Although the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Lawler) read his speech very well, it could not be considered constructive. He was at pains to stress the need for an all-party committee to examine the housing problem.

Since such a committee exists, it was odd to hear him reject one of the first suggestions made by that committee, which was the establishment of a national building agency.

Mr. Lawler: The hon. Gentleman should not misrepresent me. I did not reject it, but said that we, the Liberals, would approach such a suggestion with caution.

Mr. Silverman: I suppose that that is a way of sitting on both sides of the fence at the same time.
The hon. Member for Ladywood spoke at length about the large amount of taxpayers' money being paid by way of subsidy for housebuilding purposes. I should have thought that that was to the credit of the Government, for it shows the effort that the Government have made to keep the housebuilding programme at a high level.
I do not have the slightest doubt that even in Birmingham. which has one of the few Tory councils which is doing quite well with its housebuilding programme, council house building would have ground to a halt a long time ago had it not been for the generous subsidies being made available by the Government.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said that it was Tory policy —apparently this is to be a plank of the Tory programme—that subsidies should not be given to every council house tenant but that they should be reserved entirely for the needy. If this policy were implemented there would be an increase in the basic rents of all council houses. It would also mean that only those prepared to apply for, and submit to, a means test would receive any concession. I am opposed in principle to such a policy.
The assistance that is given generally to owner-occupiers is far more, in global and in average terms, than that given to council house tenants—and owner-occupiers get it without any form of means test. Indeed, the bigger the house and the larger the mortgage the greater the assistance that is given. I do not see why owner-occupiers, admittedly facing extraordinarily high rates of interest, should receive assistance without a means test while council house tenants should


undergo such a test. The rebate scheme is, of course, limited to a certain section of people.
In the council houses built in Birmingham in recent years under the Housing Subsidies Act, rent increases of between £2 and £3 would be faced. Only those prepared to submit to a means test would not have to pay those increases if the policy outlined by the hon. Member for Worcester were implemented. For this reason I could not support such a policy.
When the hon. Member for Ladywood spoke of recasting the financial system as it applies to housing, apparently he was playing with the same sort of idea as that expounded by the hon. Member for Worcester. Is Liberal policy on this the same as Tory policy? Is that the reason why the hon. Gentleman said that he would vote in the same Lobby as the hon. Member for Worcester?

Mr. Lawler: The answer is simple. We believe that this is a matter which should be discussed by an all-party committee. Hence our proposal for the establishment of such a committee.

Mr. Silverman: That is just passing the buck. We still do not know Liberal policy on this issue. Is it the same as Tory policy? Perhaps the Liberals do not have a policy and the hon. Gentleman was merely speaking for himself. Would the hon. Gentleman now answer "Yes" or "No" whether his policy is the same as that of the hon. Member for Worcester?

Mr. Lawler: It is not.

Mr. Silverman: Then what is it?
I agree that interest rates are high, but they are high not only here but in every other country. Interest rates are going crazy and I fear that this is a symptom of the economic madhouse in which we live, and that goes for people throughout the world. We used to call the system capitalism, but now it is the operation of market economics. Until the people of Britain, America, West Germany, France and elsewhere realise that there is no solution to this problem of high interest rates within the terms of the present economic system, the problem will not be ameliorated.

Mr. R. W. Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that under the Tories interest rates were high

in this country at a time when they were not so high in other parts of the world, whereas while we have been in power interest rates have been high not only here but everywhere?

Mr. Silverman: In the sort of world in which we live one must pay the going rate if one wishes to borrow. This has nothing to do with Government policy, except in so far as the Government have not changed the economic system. Limited and modest measures, such as control of capital going abroad, have been taken, but whenever the Government have attempted to intervene in the financial system there has been strenuous resistance from hon. Gentlemen opposite. So long as we live in a market and capitalist economy, interest rates will be high. One could discuss this issue at length, but now is not the time to do so.
The housebuilding figures which we have been given do not mean a lot to me—[Interruption.]—because they are global and cover the whole country. Not just in different parts of the country but sometimes in different parts of the same city we have not one housing problem but a variety of them. Until the figures are broken down area by area and a calculation of need made for each area, no precise conclusions can be drawn from the available statistics.
For example, in October an interesting article appeared in The Guardian about Liverpool. It said:
The Ministry of Housing and Local Government is seriously concerned about sudden proposals by Liverpool to abandon the whole, or the biggest part, of its overspill programme because of fears of a huge housing surplus in the city.
Later it went on:
Liverpool has given three main reasons for its change of mind—a vast increase in the number of "re-lets" among existing corporation houses; a drop in the birth rate; and the new trend to rehabilitate older properties. now made easier by the recent Housing Act.
The Liverpool Council, which is Tory-controlled, has considerably reduced its housing programme, and this underlines the fact that the housing problem varies from one part of the country to another.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: The hon. Gentleman has given a fair description of the housing programme in Birmingham. However, he spoke of the possibility of the programme


grinding to a halt. What further measures would he urge the Government to take to avoid such a situation arising?

Mr. Silverman: I said that if it had not been for the generous provision made by the Government, the programme would have ground to a halt. Today I would like to see more money coming from the Government to enable Birmingham's existing programme, and the programmes of other areas, to be sustained and enlarged. If my right hon. Friend will make such representations to the Chancellor he will have my support.
But, in addition, many charges must be borne by the City of Birmingham, charges at present borne by municipal tenants and the housing revenue account. For instance, while I pay tribute to Birmingham City Council, whatever its political complexion, for what it has achieved in housebuilding, the cost of this new building should be borne to some extent by the city and not placed on the backs of existing tenants.
The Government have done a great deal on the housing front and, for this reason, I will support them in the Lobby tonight. I am neither satisfied nor complacent with what has been achieved, but I admire the efforts that the Government have made.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: The Minister put on a brave face as he addressed to House today. He had to, for in his position he could not afford to do anything else. As we listened to him, however, we detected a note of sadness in his voice, and that sadness must be shared by every hon. Member who is in any way concerned about the problem of housing.
The right hon. Gentleman was said because the figures show such a catastrophic drop in housebuilding in the last year. Party political considerations aside, nobody wishes to see that state of affairs persisting. We would welcome a continuing rise in housebuilding and we therefore share the Minister's sadness in having to describe the present situation.
We also detected a feeling of humiliation, and that was not surprising. After all the proud boasts of hon. Gentlemen opposite from the Prime Minister down, about the targets that they would achieve,

they must feel humiliated at having to admit, virtually on the eve of a General Election, "We have promised and we have failed you in our promises."
Many quotations have been bandied about, but I will refer to only one. It is the famous pledge—"a pledge" he told us, not "a promise"—which the Prime Minister made in Bradford in March, 1966, when he uttered these proud words:
By 1970 … we shall achieve the 500,000 target, and we shall not allow any development, any circumstances, however adverse, to deflect us from that aim.
Today, we are told that 366,000 houses were built in 1969 and that the prospects for 1970 are even gloomier.
As is the custom on these occasions, much of the debate has been taken up with party political by-play along the lines of "Anything you can do, I can do better". Statistics have been trotted out by hon. Members on both sides. They have been stood on their heads and made to prove different points. There has been high selectivity in choosing groups of years, and the five years of the present Government have been compared with the last five years of the Conservative Government.
I will not go into the details of those figures, because that is a fruitless exercise. Instead, I advise hon. Members opposite to draw a graph from 1951, when under 200,000 houses a year were being built, to 1964, when 400,000 were being built. Those were the 13 years of Tory misrule, during which hon. Members will see a steadily and strongly increasing graph of housing completions every year from 200,000 to 400,000. One will then see, if one compares that with the years since then, that the target has teetered around the 400,000 mark and has now gone into a dramatic and desperate decline. That is the overall picture. One can be as selective as one likes and can pick out years here and there. However, taking the whole picture, that is what one sees, and there is no escape from it.
I listened carefully to the Minister's speech, and I looked for some hope. We are concerned not so much with playing about with what has happened in the past, but with trying to look to the future to see what we can do about housing. At the end of his long speech, the right hon. Gentleman gave us three factors to


show that there was a ray of hope. He told us that mortgage advances will go up next year to £1,700 million and that this is an improvement on the present year. However, he did not say that that would be more than offset by the increase in the price of houses.

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman should ask the builders.

Mr. Rossi: No, the pigeon comes home to roost on the benches opposite with regard to reasons for increase in the price of houses. There will be no advantage in the increase in mortgage advances, because it will be offset by higher house prices. With regard to local authority mortgage lending which is important for older houses, the position is equally unsatisfactory.
After cutting back to £33 million, the sum given by way of local authority advances next year will go up to £100 million. However, that is not enough, and it is far less than was given in the past. If the Minister had been more optimistic about that, there would have been more hope for the future.
He asks us to look at the order books of the builders, and, after discarding certain statistics which he says are not very reliable, he selects his own statistics and makes the general vague statement that things may pick up next year. I suggest that he looks at the figures produced by the Royal Institute of British Architects on the level of new commissions for private housing, which are generally regarded as a good pointer towards the future state of the trade. The figures for the third quarter of 1969 show a 17 per cent drop in the value of new commissions. That drop, from a second-quarter total of £519 million to £421 million in the third quarter measured at current prices, is more severe than at any time since 1954, when the R.I.B.A. began its present Series of quarterly statistics.
The importance of that figure is that the commissions which architects are earning today indicate the level of house-building in 18 months' time. That is why the position is so depressing. It is not right for the Minister to direct our attention to order books when there are figures of that kind on record which are flatly contradictory. He misleads the House in doing that. That is the third of the points

that he put forward for some kind of hope, but there is no hope there for us.
I should like the Minister to deal with different matters which really affect our housing. Let us take the local authorities first. We have had this Tory council argument trotted out again. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has indicated time and again figures which show that, if anything, Labour-controlled councils are worse than Conservative-controlled councils in this matter. As much as hon. Members opposite bluster, the figures are there and have been given them.
The factors which affect local authority building are such matters as the Ronan Point disaster and the niggardly attitude of the Minister in the help needed by the local authorities concerned to get over the financial burden which disasters of that kind have placed upon them. The local authorities responded to the urgent insistence of the Government to go in for industrialised building, tower blocks, and the rest of it. They followed the Minister's building regulations, and they led to a collapse and a subsequent condemnation of these types of buildings.
The Minister then came up with a meagre offer of 40 per cent. of the cost of putting matters right, leaving the bulk of the burden to be borne by the local authorities. How can they undertake that burden and go forward with a continuing rolling programme? They have not the money to do it. Let the Minister help those authorities, and he will see them building more houses.
Another point which local authorities always quarrel about—

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman referred to what he called my niggardliness, and he seems to think that the figure is still 40 per cent. Of course, it was increased last week to 50 per cent.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Thanks to pressure.

Mr. Rossi: How many months did it take the Minister to add that meagre 10 per cent., which is still not enough? The Government should accept 100 per cent. liability, because they have placed local authorities in this position, and the report on the Ronan Point disaster shows that clearly.
The other matter where the Government could help is in the direction of housing subsidies. The Government are helping on anything above 4 per cent., interest rates, but that only operates from the time that properties are let. Often there is a two-year period between the acquisition of the land and development—

Mr. Costain: Three.

Mr. Rossi: My hon. Friend says three years—during which time a local authority has to bear the whole of the interest charge on the capital borrowed to buy the land and build the property. Time and again, local authorities say, "It is a burden that we cannot afford. We cannot afford 9½ per cent. Help us, and we will build you more houses. If you do not, we cannot undertake this financial burden." We are getting a shortfall in local authority building, because the Government are not giving help where it is vitally needed.
A third way that the Minister can help local authorities to speed up their programmes is by his procedures regarding the cost yardstick. We get complaint after complaint from local authorities that plans that they have put forward are bogged down in the Department and they cannot get their schemes rolling forward quickly enough. Local authorities have said that time and again.
But, as the Minister rightly said, the basis of the housing problem lies in the economy of this country. We can only build, either in the private or in the public sector, what we can afford to build. Local authorities are no different from private individuals in this regard.
Another way that the Government could help would be to enable local authorities to sell off some of their properties. If they could sell to those tenants who are likely to remain in council houses for the rest of their lives, the local authorities would recoup capital which could be used for building more properties instead of having to borrow again.
Another practical way is to make sure that people who can afford it to pay fair rents for their properties, so that we need subsidise from the ratepayers' and the taxpayers' pockets only those people who really need help. If we could give that kind of economic assistance and make the

council housing financially viable, local authorities will be able to build more properties.
This is the way that the Minister should be approaching the matter. I should have liked him to deal with some of these problems in his long speech. Until these problems are dealt with, I cannot see our getting the housing situation straight.
The private sector is also governed by the economic situation. Builders will build only what they can afford to build and what people can afford to buy. If builders cannot afford to build or people cannot afford to buy, houses will not go up. This is why in the last year we have had this catastrophic drop, particularly in the private sector where there are not the ratepayers' or the taxpayers' pockets to give a subsidy to maintain buoyancy in the trade.
The Minister referred to the Annual Report of the Federation of Registered House Builders. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to detect there another ray of hope for the future. But the President of the Federation of Registered House Builders says:
The ability of the private housing sector to maintain even its present rate of construction depends on an early relaxation of the credit squeeze and on the availability of mortgage finance.
That is our ray of hope. Relax the credit squeeze and we will get more houses. But what hope did the Minister give of a relaxation of the credit squeeze?
We are told that housing ought to be "conducted like a war-time operation"—one of the earlier utterances of the Prime Minister—and that it should take priority over everything. Why cannot the building industry be given some priority in its borrowing facilities? How can the Minister expect private builders to buy land, to pay for materials, to pay the wages of people to use those materials to build houses, if they cannot borrow the money to do it? This is the basis of the whole problem in the private sector. The credit squeeze is acting as a terrible stopper on the housing programme. Moreover, it is driving so many firms, on which the Government depend to construct these houses, into bankruptcy. This is the urgency with which the Government regard the problem.
We have seen mortgages are not easier. They are merely keeping up with the cost


of buying a house—and barely doing that.
We are given no hope of relaxation of the credit squeeze or real ease in mortgage finance and so the President of the Federation of Registered House Builders will be disappointed that his members are not going to build more houses. Every conceivable obstacle and obstruction is put in their way. They are burdened with S.E.T., which, incidentally, puts up the price of a house by £125 to start with, and that makes it difficult for them. Many small firms cannot afford to pay for apprentices to attend courses under the Training Board schemes.
I will not recount all the instances of interference with the building industry by the Government. These and the economic situation that the Government have created are responsible for the appalling figures which the Minister has had to try to defend today.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Probert: Time will no: allow me to follow the points made by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). I promise to be brief. However, I make no apology for the fact that I shall be specifically referring to the Government's housing programme in Wales. I do so knowing full well that if we were discussing this matter the Opposition would not have dared to put down their Motion.
What are the facts? During the last five years we have achieved a record number of houses in the Principality, and this without reducing standards. Further, in addition to increasing council housing we have maintained a very high degree of privately-owned houses.
I have always been proud of the fact that in South Wales a high degree of owner-occupation has taken place. I am proud that the Government have assisted in maintaining this trend by passing the Leasehold Reform Act, about which we have heard nothing from the Opposition today. It did this despite continued opposition from the party opposite and, incidentally, despite many legal pundits who thought that it was not possible. This Act in itself is worthy of a Labour Government, because it has ended the anxiety and worry of thousands of people not only in Wales, but in England as well.
In 1960, when we were in opposition, only 11,600 houses were completed after nine years of Tory rule. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) referred to the golden period of 1955–60.
Over the previous five years only 59,000 houses were completed—an average of 12,000 houses per year. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want statistics. We know the reason. Here are the statistics.
What is the position after five years of Labour Government? Nearly 100,000 houses have been completed in Wales—almost double the figure that the Tories achieved in 1955–60. It is true that in 1964, after 13 years of Tory administration, Wales had the high figure of 19,000 houses. But this was 1964, and I need hardly remind the House of what was happening. There was an election at the end of the year and a deficit of £800 million on balance of payments which rendered this country bankrupt and made it more difficult for the new Government to proceed.
It is true that 1969 has shown a decline in Wales, as elsewhere, from the very high average of 19,000 bourses per year to, I understand, 17,300. But this is significantly higher than the 1963 figure of 14,000 under the Tory Administration after 10 or 12 years.
In the private sector, too, Wales has had a good record in the last five years. Nearly 50,000 houses have been completed in the private sector in Wales compared with a much lesser figure of 40,000 in the last five years of the 13 years of Tory administration. These are some of the records in Wales.
I have referred to standards. In 1965, fewer than 20 per cent. of local authority houses throughout the United Kingdom met the Parker Morris standards. Today, all houses have to be built to those standards.
It is this Government who passed the 1969 Housing Act, with its dramatic new approach to environmental development —we have heard nothing about this from hon. Gentlemen opposite—with its provision of financial help to local authorities, which could perhaps save thousands of houses in the older industrial areas. Equally important, it gave assistance towards improving the amenities in those areas. It is this Act which, for the first time ever, provides grants for the repair


of houses, as distinct from, but in conjunction with, improvements, and it is now up to local authorities to understand this Act and to operate it.
It is this Government who have announced that in Wales they are nearly doubling the allocation of mortgages to local authorities from £4½ million to £7½ million, despite the stringency of the economic situation. High interest rates have been in operation, and I know that my hon. Friends from Salford and Birmingham feel strongly about this issue, but this factor has not been mentioned. We cannot isolate ourselves from internationally high rates of interest, but, if high rates are to prevail, some research is necessary by the Government to see how we can isolate housing, which is a social need.
The Motion is yet another example, the second this week, of pure political opportunism. It is this Government who have increased the housing subsidy in my constituency from £30 in 1964 to £70 now—2⅓ times what it was under the Tory Administration. I shudder to think what will happen to housing subsidies if the Conservatives get back into office.
It is this Government who really did something for the security of the tenant, although we heard a lot about it before 1964. It is this Government who finally ended the scandal of the leasehold system, about which the Conservatives resolutely refused to do anything. It is this Government who introduced the 1969 Housing Act, with all its assistance to owner-occupiers, owners, tenants, and local authorities. The Opposition should have tabled, not a Motion of censure, but a Motion of congratulation, that during this time of stringency the Government could achieve and put into operation all the things that I have mentioned.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, and I shall do so briefly, because I know that others wish to speak.
I want to bring the House back from the delightful area of Aberdare. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) was honest enough to confess that there had been a falling off in the number of houses built last year, and decent enough,

unlike his Front Bench, not to blame Tory local authorities for the situation in Wales.
I want to come back nearer home, to Harrow. I was inspired to speak by the wild remarks of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), who, I regret. has left the Chamber. He came in armed with a voluminous bundle of papers, and started booming away. I thought that there would be a massive attack on Harrow, but at the end virtually nothing came out, though I should like to deal with the criticisms that he made.
First, the hon. Gentleman alleged that the council had sold land which was earmarked for housing purposes. This is untrue. The only piece of land which Harrow sold was a site designated for office and administrative purposes. The land was purchased before the war, and it was sold for office purposes. It had nothing to do with housing. It was designed entirely for administrative development, and in selling it the council made a substantial profit which went to the benefit of the ratepayers as a whole. That was an example of the hon. Gentleman not doing his homework.
The hon. Gentleman's second complaint was that at some time in 1968 the council passed a resolution to the effect that it would not carry out any more council house building. The true facts are that in 1966, entirely in accordance with the Government's then prices and incomes policy, Harrow Council decided that it had to increase the rents of its council houses. It informed the Minister of this, and heard of no objection from him. Later, the Minister, quite arbitrarily, directed the council not to bring in the increases necessary to balance its accounts.
The effect of that extraordinary decision would have been to put the housing account in deficit within four years, contrary to the law by which it is obliged to maintain a balance, unless a considerably increased burden had been put on the ratepayers. It was in the course of discussing the matter that the council minuted that as a result of this foolish decision by the Minister it would have to consider curtailing severely its future building programme. Happily, that has not happened.
I turn now to the third allegation which has been made, not only by the


hon. Member for Harrow, East, but by no less a personage than the Home Secretary. During the debate on the Queen's Speech he said that Harrow had no building programme. This is absolute nonsense. I wrote to the Home Secretary pointing out that he was in error, no doubt due to the heat of the debate, and inviting him to make a personal statement. I am still waiting for an apology.
The facts are that in four years, in sprite of, not because of, the Labour Government, Harrow has succeeded in increasing its stock of houses by 12 per cent. About 450 houses were completed last year, and it has a programme of 362 dwellings planned for the immediate future. Last year, a new housing estate was opened in Harrow. The Minister was invited to the ceremony, but I accept that because of other engagements he could not attend. Had he attended, he would have seen in use, for the first time, a new method for building flats. It was a remarkable example of a local authority using its initiative, and it will provide first-class accommodation for many of my constituents who so desperately need it.

Mr. Freeson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Treasury Bench are at a loss to understand this, because we have been trying to meet representatives of the Harrow authority. We are told that it has a programme, and that it has been building houses. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will help us in this. We have been trying to find out the programme for the current year, and for next year. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not one dwelling was put out to tender in 1969?

Mr. Grant: Even that is incorrect, because in 1969 eight tenders were put out, and nine tender documents were in preparation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the construction of 123 dwellings is to start shortly at Rayners Lane.

Mr. Freeson: When?

Mr. Grant: Shortly. I shall not commit myself to a date, but I can find out, and when I do I shall let the hon. Gentleman know.
About 362 new dwellings are planned for the immediate future. The Minister is able to discuss this matter with the

local authority if he wishes to, but should tell him that the council is waiting for him to withdraw the allegations made by the Ministry that Harrow has no housing programme. When that is done. the council will see him.
I maintain that Harrow has suffered a good deal. It is symbolic of what is going on in the country. Ever since the Tories won control of so many councils the Government and the Minister of Housing have been seeking to blame these councils for the Government's mistakes. I do not intend to let the Government get away with it in respect of Harrow.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), because he is the third hon. Member for Harrow who has intervened in this debate. I suggest that they go back to Harrow Town Hall to thrash this matter out.
As always in these housing debates, there has been a lot of propaganda and counter-propaganda, charges and counter charges, and claims about what we did and what they did. I could not care less who has done what, when it was done and how it was done. All I am concerned with is that now, in 1970, some of my constituents have been waiting 20 years for decent houses. I have constituents living in half-way houses. I know of spouses who have been separated and live in separate accommodation. Political propaganda about whether this Government or the other did better does not help me or my constituents.
What we have had is an admission on both sides of a drastic shortfall in house production last year. There have been various explanations. One, which the Minister gave, is that we have balanced our payments, with all the consequent difficulties. He had better not come and tell my constituents who are waiting for houses that this is the reason that they are unlucky. They will say that the best thing is not to achieve high export levels, that they would rather we did not balance our books if that would mean more houses.
During the week, the Parliamentary Secretary said that one reason was Ronan Point. One of the most shocking and disgusting episodes that I have experienced in 25 years in this House is the


attitude of the Minister and the Government over Ronan Point. It happened in May, 1968—not just last year. I have here all the HANSARD references. The Minister promised expeditious action and said that he would deal with the matter promptly, fairly and all the rest of it. I have a page here of Questions asked by me every week.
My right hon. Friend said that the authorities concerned would have to meet 60 per cent. of the cost and that he could not increase it. The reason was that he would not stand up against the Treasury. He and the Parliamentary Secretary said that they could do nothing about it. After I had pegged away and got nowhere with the Minister, and had taken it up with the Prime Minister, after the Minister had promised to make a statement to me, he arranged for another hon. Member to put down a sponsored Question. That is the normal practice, but usually the Member who has shown an interest is asked to put down the Question. I mention that only in passing.
Tonight, my right hon. Friend corrected an hon. Member and said that the Government grant will now be not 40 per cent. but 50 per cent. Then why did he say that he could not improve on the original offer? And why 50 per cent., anyway? Why should he impose this burden upon the poorer areas which must build these tower blocks—not because they like or want them, but because they have not the land or resources to do otherwise? This will mean a bill of £.12½million for the Treasury and £12½ million for the local authorities in areas like Newham, where the disaster took place.
This area, which suffered most during the blitz, has never got over that problem. Yet, after this disaster, it is told that, out of local rates or rents, it will have to pay, and that the Treasury will not honour its obligation because the Minister is too weak to stand up against the Treasury. If he had stood up to them in the first place, he might have got more than this 50 per cent.
The Minister and I have had an acrimonious correspondence on this, for which I make no apology. We have had arguments—I will not say near-fights—and heated discussions. I will not support the Government in the Lobby

tonight, even with a three-line Whip on, because they have not done enough in this case. When there is a disaster in this country, it is accepted that we all pay, whether it is in Scotland, Wales, or anywhere else. When, unfortunately, it was at Aberfan, we expected the whole nation to meet the cost. Why should the poor, working-class, industrial areas, which are already saddled with debts which they cannot meet, have to pay this bill, which the Minister says will be 50 per cent.? That is an improvement, but it is still 50 per cent. too much.
I do not know whether Tory councils have or have not purposely arranged for a shortfall in production—I am not arguing about that—but my right hon. Friend cannot deny that there has been no lack of industrious building of council houses in Newham. It has one of the best records in the country and always has had. It wants to build houses. Unfortunately, lacking the land, we must still build tower blocks.
Even with the 50 per cent. grant, does the Minister know what will happen? Has he decided on the type of strengthening? No, he has not. He has sent out some suggestions and the councils themselves will have to decide. If they choose the cheaper one, which may not be the best, they will save money, which will be the tendency of a poor authority—although that may not be best for the tenants.
The difficulty is that some tenants do not want to go hack into the tower blocks even after they are strengthened. Does the Minister realise that this means that some people who have been waiting a long time for accommodation are saying, "If Bill Brown, who moved temporarily out of a tower block, is not going back, why should I have to take his place, particularly if I have to pay more rent to pay for the ugly iron girder which has been put around the building to strengthen it?"
None of these things has been discussed; nor has the Minister made a fair and reasonable approach on this issue. Therefore, I hope that there will be a different approach, from the Treasury in the first place and then from the Minister. I agree with the suggestion that we should treat housing as a wartime emergency. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), who has been here all day waiting to speak, rightly said that


there are areas where there should be a concentration on house building and that in others it does not matter too much if houses are not built for a little while.
I should like the Minister to initiate a scheme of helping areas which are in urgent need—not only in slum clearance, in which the Government have done an excellent job and to which I pay tribute. We all know of areas which are in urgent need. We should say that the better-off areas should help the backward areas, backward in the sense that they need more help and assistance. Even with the very generous help which the Government have given by way of grants and subsidies many of these poorer local authorilies still cannot afford to go forward with as big housing programmes as they would like because there is such a problem for their local inhabitants.
Let us try to rearrange the whole of housing and pick out the worst areas to see if we can help them to get on with the job of building houses and flats. I ask the Minister to dig his toes in with reference to the cost of repairing Ronan Point. I cannot give him support tonight, for I must protest at what I feel is lack of attention on this issue.

6.21 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: Until the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) spoke it seemed that all hon. Members on the Government benches must have been brain-washed by a brief which had been handed to them. There is no mystery about why we are suffering from a catastrophic fall in housebuilding. This is part of the Government's general economic policy. As the Minister said, it is deliberate policy to cut consumption, and housebuilding is taking its share. The Government want housebuilding to fall and hon. Members opposite will have to swallow that medicine just as they have had to swallow a lot of other unpleasant medicine. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Tory councils?"] I shall come to that.
To achieve this we have had a prolonged credit squeeze, high interest rates and other Government measures which have put up prices. The Government must accept responsibility for all the frustration and misery which has been engendered. We have heard a great

deal about councils deliberately cutting housebuilding. Presumably both Labour-and Conservative-controlled councils have done that. This is absolute rubbish, for they cannot build houses because the Government do not want them to do so.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Mr. Raphael Tuck (Watford) rose—

Captain Elliot: I shall not give way.
It may be that the councils could still weather the storm, but in addition to the squeeze the Government imposed another measure. The Minister has taken power to restrict the rents which councils can charge for their houses. He knows that councils have to balance their housing accounts every year and if they cannot do that through rents so they have to do it through the rates. In those circumstances, how can they go on producing houses?
Until there is a deliberate change in Government policy homebuilding will languish. No wonder the Minister of Housing is not in the Cabinet. It would be most embarrassing to the Prime Minister if he were still in it. We shall not get a reversal of the drop in house-building until we have a reversal in Government economic policy, and I cannot see a reversal of Government economic policy coming until we have a change of Government. The sooner that happens, the better.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: This debate opened with a very constructive speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), in which he put ten points for dealing with the present housing shortage crisis. It was followed by a complacent speech by the Minister, in which he did not deal with those ten points at all. They cannot have come as a surprise to him. They are the sort of things about which everyone has been talking in connection with the housing problem, the sort of things which ought to be done to remedy the present condition.
The Minister could have come off his brief for a moment and dealt with those points. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning—I always find that rather a mouthful—will do so when he replies to the debate. Perhaps also he will reply to the


Motion. The Motion refers to the Election promises by the party now in Government
of 500,000 houses a year by 1970 at lower cost with cheaper mortages.
Those promises were made by many Labour candidates on many occasions in 1964 and 1966 during the election campaigns of those years.
We need quote only those of the Prime Minister himself to show that those promises were made. There was the one at Stevenage on 16th September, 1964, when he said:
We shall cheapen the cost of housing by our interest rate policy.
There was the famous one, which has been quoted more than once in this debate, his statement at Bradford on 27th March, 1966, that
Starting from last year's total"—
It was 1965 to which he referred—
of 380,000 houses and flats, we shall go on year by year exceeding this total"—
Incidentally, that itself was a broken promise—
'and reaching by 1970 no less than 500,000 new dwellings. This is not a lightly given promise. It is a pledge.
It cannot be denied that those promises were made, and I do not think it is denied. They brought hope to many homeless families. Neither can it be denied that the promises have been broken. On numbers the 500,000 target was publicly abandoned by the Government in 1968 and it cannot possibly be achieved even by a change of policy in 1970.
The cost of new houses has increased between 1964 and the present time by three-tenths, so that the normal sort of house, costing £3,500 in 1964, would cost £5,000 now. Mortgage rates have risen from 6 per cent. in October, 1964, to 8½ per cent. officially in 1969–70, but many who seek mortgages will find that some societies charge an even higher rate. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) suggested that this was all outside Government control, a sort of act of God, or an act of the gnomes of Zurich, but in this country we rely on foreign investments, and interest rates depend on confidence, or lack of confidence, which foreign investors have in the Government in office in this country.
The promises were made; the promises were broken. All that we are debating today are the miscellaneous excuses made by the Government for their breach of faith with the electorate. A few strange excuses have been put forward by the Minister. He said that we are only doing as badly as the United States—which is not much comfort to those in West Ham, North.

Mr. Greenwood: I said "were not".

Mr. Page: We were not doing as badly as in the United States.
The right hon. Gentleman then put forward that for the first time more than half the population are living in houses which they own, but has he seen the statement today from the building societies that last year 27,000 fewer new houses were bought, 27,000 fewer than in 1968, and of old houses, 9,000 fewer? Although owner-occupation has been mounting over the past years, this is the trend during 1969 under a Labour Government—a drop in owner-occupation.
Then the Minister pointed to what is happening under the Leasehold Reform Act, as did the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert). Selling a leasehold house to a sitting tenant does not increase the number of houses. Of course, the house can be sold cheaper if it is sold only at the price of the plot on which it is built. If the Government claim that as an achievement in housing, it falls rather short of what the public expect of them.
Then the Minister said that the Government had been encouraging housing associations. I notice that he refrained from mentioning housing societies. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) read out a paragraph from Yesterday's Evening News about mortgage hopes. The hon. Gentleman failed to read to the House the headline of the adjoining article:
Homes chief attacks complacent Minister.
The article says:
Lord Strathcona, chairman of the committee which liaises with the Government-sponsored Housing Corporation, said today: 'The whole housing society organisation is likely to dry up unless the Government pump in funds to save the situation…I think the public should know that hardly any starts were made in 1969. Unless the Government


increases funds for the Housing Corporation, the number of starts in 1970 and 1971 are going to be almost non-existent.'
That is the sort of help which the Government have given to housing societies and the housing society movement. The Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have clamped down on the movement, have stopped it from expanding by refusing funds to the Housing Corporation.
The Minister's fourth excuse was that the Government were concentrating on the great impetus to house improvement, to modernisation and to repairing under the Housing Act, 1969. This Act merely caught up with 1964 in the amount of improvement and standard grants, the value of money having dropped during that period. That money, as was proclaimed on the front of the Housing Bill, is to come out of the general expenditure on new houses in the public sector.
Those were the excuses advanced by the Minister. A most ingenious excuse was advanced by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Freeson: I thought that made the hon. Gentleman angry.

Mr. Page: It did. It made me very angry that there could be such a Government in office, putting forward such excuses. In future, we are not to call this pledge—this not lightly given promise—a pledge. It is merely a standard set by the Labour Party. The hon. Gentleman said, "In so far as we have fallen short, we have fallen short of the standards set by ourselves".

Mr. Freeson: Yes, not by the Tories.

Mr. Page: We did not set the standards. It was the Labour Party that put them before the country and that sought to win votes on them. The Parliamentary Secretary was implying that it does not matter if a Government do not come up to a self-set standard. Does it not? Of course it does if that was held in front of the people as a promise by which to catch their votes.
The Amendment lists the official excuses. We are told, first, that more houses were built in five years of Labour Government than in the last five years of the previous Conservative Government. I

want to examine that claim. The Conservative record from 1952–64 was an average of 327,000 houses a year—well over the 300,000 figure. During the last five years it was an average of 314,000 a year. [Interruption.] I am taking the average for the period. The hon. Gentleman went wrong in the figures he gave in the debate last week and he has had to admit it.
The Minister accused the Conservative Government of not building that many. Does he know that his Leader has complained about our having done so? This is what the Prime Minister has said:
The Tory achievement of building well over 300,000 houses per annum was electorally popular and socially desirable, but it placed a great strain on our economic resources.
Now does the Minister say that we did not keep our promises?
About 1962 it became evident that the country could spend more resources on house building. The Conservative Government produced their White Paper of 1963 setting out a new 10-year plan. The first results of that 1963 White Paper were seen in 1964—373,576 houses. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Aberdare, the figure for Wales for that year was 19,000, which the Government have improved on by only 1,000 each year since. So the hon. Gentleman cannot claim a very great achievement by the Government in respect of Wales.
This plan was in gear when the Labour Government took office. They drove it rather slowly for the first two years. They quickened a little for the next two years. In 1969, they seem to have broken down altogether. In 1969, there is an 11 per cent. or 12 per cent. drop on the 1968 figure. From the drop in starts and the drop in houses under construction it is obvious that there will be a greater percentage drop in 1970 and not the Minister's forecast of some increase in 1970. It is practically impossible for there to be an increase, in view of the figures of starts which even this month have decreased by 6,000—25 per cent. down on January, 1968.
If this disastrous Government remain in office until the end of 1970, instead of being able to record that after six years of toil and economic strife their


election promises have been redeemed, they will have to admit that during those six years the number of new homes built has averaged less than the figure in the year when they took office. That is supposed to be the achievement of this Government in housing—and this after all their grandiose promises.
Now we are asked to approve the Government's slum clearance programme. Between 1955 and 1964, under the plan operated by the Conservative Government, we dealt with over 600,000 slum dwellings and rehoused 1¾ million people. When the White Paper set the new plan in 1963, slum clearance was well under way and the Labour Government had the advantage of taking over a running machine which they have to a great extent let run down ever since. The trouble now is that there are too many cleared sites in the country which it is too expensive to develop in the present economic situation created by this Government.
The further excuse which comes up again and again, not only from the Government Front Bench, but also from the Government back benches, is that Conservative councils have deliberately, and for political reasons, encouraged by the Opposition, cut down house building. The hon. Member for Harrow, East went so far as to say that a directive had been sent out from Conservative Central Office to this effect.

Mr. Roebuck: A diktat.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman said "a directive".

Mr. Roebuck: I said "a diktat".

Mr. Page: I do not mind which it is. It means the same thing, I suppose. I am sufficiently naive to believe in the first instance what is said in the House, so I had inquiries made and I give now from those inquiries a categorical denial that any such diktat has been sent out from Conservative Central Office.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Page: Do not ask the hon. Member to withdraw. It will only waste time.
This criticism of local authorities is like taking away a man's braces and,

when his trousers fall down round his ankles, jeering at him when he cannot run. The Government have taken away the power of local authorities to carry out this building programme.
The Minister said that our Motion was a Motion of censure on the Government's economic policy. I agree entirely, having in mind, in particular, the way their economic policy affects local authorities. The Parliamentary Secretary said in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill that he was personally involved in visiting local authorities to try to persuade them on their housing programmes. I want to know—perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us—what the Parliamentary Secretary has been saying to local authorities. He was invited by his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) to say whether he would go any further than persuading. He said that he would deal with that, and later he said:
We are investigating possibilities, including that of establishing a public agency to deal with the provision of housing and urban renewal services…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1970; Vol. 794, c. 1320.]
A public agency? Does this mean a second Land Commission? What is it but a nationalised building corporation? Is this second Land Commission to take over property in local authority areas, and is the Parliamentary Secretary bullying local authorities with the threat that a Land Commission Mark II will be put into their districts?
From a debate on this subject now, in the early part of 1970, and the making public of the inescapable forecast one has to make for 1970 in housing, people will realise that the Government have not merely had a failure in housing but they have not learned the lesson from that failure. They are moving into another period of failure, and worse failure, in 1970.
I am sure that from this debate the House has learned that the sooner we start implementing the ten constructive points put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), the better it will be for the country. The country will have learned from the debate that the time has come for the Government to go before they do any further damage to the housing of the families of our land.

6.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning (Mr. Anthony Crosland): No one can take part in a housing debate in any mood or spirit of complacency. This afternoon's debate has, perhaps, not been wholly without a tinge of electioneering, but we all know that beneath the rhetoric and the figures which we swap across the Floor lies one of our most urgent and serious social problems. A number of speeches from both sides have described the problem in eloquent terms.
It is because the problem is so serious that the figures for 1969 come as a disappointment to everybody. Having broken the barrier of 400,000 houses for two years in a row, we naturally wanted to do the same or better in 1969.
The first matter to examine is why we had a slow-down in 1969. First, in the public sector some part of the slow-down was undoubtedly due to the high cost of raising money to finance construction. I shall return to that point in a moment. There were other factors, referred to in other speeches. On top of all those factors a number of priority authorities in areas with special problems of obsolescence and overcrowding were seen to be slackening off their efforts more than the Minister thought they should.
The Opposition show two totally contradictory attitudes on this subject. In the debate on the Address, when the Minister of Housing commented on the poor performance of certain Tory authorities, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) became indignant. He bandied about a mass of Figures to show how well those authorities had done and how they had done better, he claimed, than the Socialist authorities. The same suggestions have been made this afternoon, for example, during the exchanges relating to Harrow.
The hon. Member for Worcester got the point wrong, since his figures were concerned with starts and completions whereas my right hon. Friend the Minister was concerned with the evidence of future intentions of authorities—how many houses they had put or contemplated putting to contract.
It is a serious situation where six London housing authorities all of them

with serious housing problems, have put fewer than 100 dwellings out to tender in 1969. Indeed, four of those authorities did not put one dwelling out to tender in 1969. The performance of those authorities hardly seems to reflect the sense of urgency which the hon. Gentleman was this afternoon pressing on the Government. That sort of attitude is an inevitable consequence of the hon. Gentleman's policy. If Tory authorities really had done so well and had done much better, as he claimed, than the Socialist authorities, they must have totally ignored the advice he gave them.
Quotations have been made this afternoon, but they need to be repeated. In a speech in Manchester, in June, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester said:
I hope that the Conservative councils will take great care to resist the temptation to go on building council houses for all sorts of seemingly good purposes".
In the light of the hon. Gentleman's proud claim that Conservative councils were doing better than Socialist councils this sentence reads particularly oddly:
New Conservative housing chairman have a great tendency to prove to the Socialists that they can build even more council houses than their predecessors…
In the same speech on the Address, in which he defended the building performance of Tory authorities and compared it favourably with the building performance of Labour authorities, he said:
My theme is that the future will not be one in which councils are endeavouring to show that they are building an increasing number of council houses.
That is a very odd theme for an hon. Member who is complaining in this debate of the decline in building in 1969.
The fact is that, despite the terms of the Motion, Tory policy for the public sector is to build fewer council houses and moreover to sell off part of the existing stock, which might otherwise be used to house the homeless. It has not been denied by anybody who has taken part in this debate that the major reason for the decline in house building in 1969 —particularly in the private sector, where the decline has been greatest—has been the shortage of credit and high interest rates. What we must ask ourselves is what these factors are due to and whether they could be miraculously reversed by our adopting Tory policy. They are due,


first, and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) slurred over this, to the pull of world interest rates generally.
As my right hon. Friend has already pointed out, a high Bank Rate is not unique to Britain. Almost every other major industrial country has a Bank Rate or a discount rate roughly comparable to our own. I shall not quote the figures, because they have already been quoted. The Opposition totally refuses to face that problem. When I was at the Board of Trade they were constantly urging the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself to relax control on capital movements, to free foreign investment and to pay tribute, which I have often done with great pleasure, to the invisible earnings of the City of London.
But they cannot at the same time suggest that we can contract out of world capital markets, isolate our own monetary system, and reduce our own Bank Rate unilaterally. The two approaches are totally inconsistent. When I say that they "cannot" suggest that, that is not quite right. What they do in practice is slyly to hint that they will bring down interest rates, but they never explicitly say that that they will do it, because they know very well that, in practice, they could not.
The second reason for the decline in 1969, also referred to in several of the speeches today, has been the need to convert a balance of payments deficit of £800 million into a surplus. This the Government have done. We now have a surplus running at a rate of over £500 million a year. In fact, we have the strongest balance of payments which this country has had for a generation. We have achieved this by switching, as my right hon. Friend said, about 3 per cent. of our national resources, of our gross national product, into exports—and now some more, I am glad to say, into rising manufacturing investment.

Captain Elliot: Captain Elliot rose—

Mr. Crosland: No; I have only about 15 minutes.
But these resources have to come from some other forms of spending, and that is why we have had high interest rates, harsh Budgets and a general squeeze on private spending, including private spending on housing.
There is one way out of this dilemma, the way which the Tory Party took in the one year to which we are always referred, the one good year of 1964. In 1964, there was a sudden large increase, an increase of 25 per cent., in a house building programme which had been stagnant for the previous eight years. The Tories achieved in 1964, though in no other year, a figure of house completions marginally higher than our figure for last year though still lower than the figure for all the other years of Labour Government.
But 1964 had two other characteristics. It was an election year, and it produced a balance of payments deficit of £800 million. In other words, that one Tory housing programme, which has been referred to again and again today, the only programme which even approached the Labour performance, was not only an electioneering programme but it was financed out of a balance of payments deficit. In other words, it was financed by foreign borrowing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I repeat: it was financed by foreign borrowing. Urgent though the housing problem was in 1964, as it is today, it is not a problem to be solved by reckless irresponsibility of that kind.
Apart from that one single year, when the Tories behaved rather like young Mr. Brody, showering cheques on all and sundry, which the banks refused to cash, the Tory record on housing had been abysmal. Everything that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said about it the other night is absolutely correct. I have the figures here. The hon. Member for Worcester bandied figures about. If he wants it, his nose must be rubbed in his own Government's record.
After the brief Macmillan spurt in the early 1950s—and even in those years the Tories never achieved a housing programme comparable with what we have achieved in every year of Labour government—the Tory Government markedly lost interest in housing and grew weary of well-doing. During six of their 13 years they built fewer houses than they had built the year before—so they certainly will not be unfamiliar with the problem which they are discussing this evening. They achieved a peak figure of completions in 1954 of 348,000, and not once in the 10 years thereafter, until the election


year of 1964, did they achieve as high a figure. In 1963, they built fewer houses than they did 10 years previously. In the light of that record, how they have the audacity to put down this Motion passes comprehension.
The Labour Government's record is incomparably better. As my right hon. Friend said, over 2 million houses have been built since October, 1964, a greater number than in any previous five-year period, and more than 25 per cent. above the number built during the last five years of Tory rule. The increase extends over the public sector and the private sector; it applies to starts as well as completions, and, in addition, there has been a marked improvement, as several hon. Members have said, in the standard and quality of the houses built.
Moreover, the number of houses built is not the only measure of progress. We now make available to local authorities mere generous subsidies than any previously paid. We have introduced more generous grants for improvement, even though the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to have noticed it. We have established an option mortgage scheme, and improved its terms by an Order taking effect at the beginning of this month. It is curious that, with all their professed devotion to home ownership, it never occurred to hon. Members opposite actually to help the lower-paid, would-be home owner in this way.
We have given leaseholders the right to buy the freehold of their houses, which has enabled thousands of people, including a good many in my constituency, to feel much more secure in their own homes. We have given much greater protection to private tenants and have kept council rents to a reasonable level by stopping excessive increases. We are now stepping up again the slum clearance campaign.
Perhaps it is not surprising that hon. Members opposite have had little to say on these matters in the debate, but have confined themselves to gloating over the 1969 figures alone—although, as I said, they would have been happy to settle for the 1969 figure in any of their 13 years of office save, characteristically, the election year 1964.
Despite the achievements, which are considerable, no one on this Front Bench

is satisfied with the existing level of activity. We want to see, and we must see, further increases in the rate of new construction, in the rate of improvements, and in the rate of slum clearance. The present position does not satisfy any of my colleagues or myself, and we have noted with care the several suggestions made during the debate for what might be done.
However, while we are not satisfied with our performance and want to improve it, we are only too satisfied to present our performance to the electorate and to contrast it with what the Tories did when in office and what they would be likely to do in the improbable event of their being elected.
It is abundantly plain that the problem will not be solved by a party which built fewer houses in 1963 than in 1953. It will not be solved by a party whose extremists share the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that "there ought not to be a housing policy." It will not be solved by a party whose Leader talks wildly of fair rents for council houses without telling us what sort of increase for most rents this would entail—30 per cent., 50 per cent., 70 per cent.—we have no idea what is meant by the phrase "fair rents".
The problem will not be solved by a party which pledges itself at the same time to do more for housing—a lot of suggestions for more public money on housing have been made today—more for education, more for the Health Service, and defence forces east of Suez —all combined with lower taxation. It will not be solved by a party whose sudden discovery of the virtue of compassion, and whose sudden discovery of the problems of the old and the homeless is received in the country with a mixture of derision and nausea.
I have no hesitation in commending to the House the carefully worded Amendment—

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): Very carefully worded.

Mr. Crosland: —with its wholly accurate account of Labour achievements in this matter, and in asking the House to reject the utterly hypocritical Opposition Motion.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 224.

Division No. 54.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric(Islington,E.)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Albu, Austen
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John


Alldritt, Walter
Foley, 'Maurice
Mackintosh, John P.


Allen, Scholefield
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maclennan, Robert


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fowler, Gerry
McNamara, J. Kevin


Ashley, Jack
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Manuel, Archie


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gardner, Tony
Mapp, Charles


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Garrett, W. E.
Marks, Kenneth


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David


Barnes, Michael
Golding, john
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Barnett, Joel
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Maxwell, Robert


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mayhew, Christopher


Bidwell, Sydney
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Binns, John
Gregory, Arnold
Mendelson, John


Bishop, E. S.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian




Millan, Bruce


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Griffiths, Wilt (Exchange)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Guntcr, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Molloy, William


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moonman, Eric


Boston, Terence
Hamling, William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hannan, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boyden, James
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Haseidine, Norman
Moyle, Roland


Brooks, Edwin
Hazell, Bert
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Neal, Harold


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Bclper)
Henig, Stanley
Newens, Stan


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle.upon-Tyne,W.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Norwood, Christopher


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hilton, W. S.
Oakes, Gordon


Buchan, Norman
Hobden, Dennis
Ogden, Eric


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hoolcy, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, G.)
Horner, John
O'Malley, Brian


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Albert E.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Orme, Stanley


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Leslie
Padley, Walter


Concannon,J. D.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cronin, John
Hynd, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Crosland. Rt. Hn. Anthony
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dalyell, Tarn
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pentlancl, Norman


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Delargy, Hn. John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dell, Edmund
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Dewar, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kenyon, Clifford
Randall, Harry


Dickens, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rankin, John



Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rees, Merlyn


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Richard, Ivor


Doig peter
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dunn, James A.
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, John (Reading)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Roebuck, Roy


Eadie, Alex
Llpton, Marcus
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Loughlin, Charles
Ryan, John


Ellis, John
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


English, Michael
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sheldon, Robert


Ennals, David
McBride, Neil
Shinwel:, Rt. Hn. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McCann, John
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacColl, James
Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton,N.E.)


Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, A. H.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fernyhough, E.
McElhone, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuire, Michael
Skeffingron, Arthur




Small, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Snow, Julian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Wallace, George
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Storehouse, Rt. Hn., John
Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Swain, Thomas
Weitzman, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Taverne, Dick
Wellbeloved, James
Winnick, David


Thomas, Rt, Hn. George
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Thornton, Ernest
Whitaker, Ben
Woof, Robert


Tinn, James
White, Mrs. Eirene



Tornney, Frank
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tuck, Raphael
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Varley, Eric G.






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fisher, Nigel
Maddan, Martin


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fortescue, Tim
Maginnis, John E.


Astor, John
Foster, Sir John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marten, Neil


Awdry, Daniel
Fry, Peter
Maude, Angus


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Batsford, Brian
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bell, Ronald
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bessell, Peter
Grant, Anthony
Monro, Hector


Biffen, John
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Biggs-Davison, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gurden, Harold
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Body, Richard
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Neave, Airey


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Braine, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John


Brewis, John
Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hay, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. s.


Bromley-Davcnnort,Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, John (Harrow, w.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heseltine, Michael
Pardoe, John


Bryan Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
pike, Miss Mervyn


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hiley, Joseph
pink, R Bonner


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, J. E. B.



Burden, F. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pounder, Rafton


Campbell, B. (Oldham, w.)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Price. David (Eastleigh)


Carlisle, Mark
Hooson, Emlyn
Pym, Francis


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hordern, Peter
Quennell Miss J M


Channon, H. P. G.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Chataway, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clark, Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Clegg, Waller
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rhys Williams Sir Brandon


Cooke, Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cordle, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grlnstead)
Rippon, Rt. Hn, Geoffrey


Corfield, F. V.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Royle, Anthony


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Crowder, F. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kimball, Marcus
Sharpies, Richard


Currie, G. It. H.
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Silvester, Frederick



Lambton, Viscount



Dance, James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sinclair, Sir George


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Dean, Paul
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lawler, Wallace
Speed, Keith


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stalnton, Keith


Doughty, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stodart, Anthony


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Longden, Gilbert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Drayson, G. B.
Lubbock, Eric
Summers, Sir Spencer


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tapsell, Peter


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,cathcart)


Emery, Peter
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley
Temple, John M.


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Eyre, Reginald
McNalr-Wilson, Michael
Tilney, John







Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Weatherill, Bernard
Worsley, Marcus


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wright, Esmond


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Wylie, N. R.


Waddington, David
Wiggin, A. W.
Younger, Hn. George


Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)



Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wall, Patrick
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Ward, Christopher (Swindon)
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Jasper More.


Ward, Dame Irene

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 222.

Division No. 55.]
AYES
[7.11 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Eadie, Alex
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Albu, Austen
Edelman, Maurice
Judd, Frank


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kelley, Richard


Alldritt, Walter
Ellis, John
Kenyon, Clifford


Allen. Scholefield
English, Michael
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Ennals, David
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Ashley, Jack
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lawson, George


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Faulds, Andrew
Leadbitter, Ted


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Femyhough, E.
Ledger, Ron


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lee, John (Reading)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (lslington,E.)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)


Barnes, Michael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lipton, Marcus


Barnett, Joel
Foley, Maurlce
Lomas, Kenneth


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Loughlin, Charles


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
Luard, Evan


Binns, John
Fowler, Gerry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bishop, E. S.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McBride, Neil


Blackburn, F.
Freeson, Reginald
MoCann, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacColl, James


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gardner, Tony
Macdonald, A. H.


Booth, Albert
Garrett, W. E.
McElhone, Frank


Boston, Terence
Ginsburg, David
McGuire, Michael


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Golding, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Boyden, James
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bradley, Tom
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackie, John


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mackintosh, John P.


Brooks, Edwin
Gregory, Arnold
Maclennan, Robert


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon.Tyne,W.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwefl)
Manuel, Archie


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mapp, Charles


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hannan, William
Marks, Kenneth


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Cant, R. B.
Haseldine, Norman
Maxwell, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Hazell, Bert
Mayhew, Christopher


Concannon, J. D.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Henig, Stanley
Mendelson, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mikardo, Ian


Crawshaw, Richard
Hilton, W. S.
Millan, Bruce


Cronin, John
Hobden, Dennis
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Horner, John
Molloy, William


Dalyell, Tarn
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moonman, Erie


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Huckfteld, Leslie
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, Roland


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davies, Ifor (Gowor)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Neal, Harold


Delargy, H. J.
Hunter, Adam
Newens, Stan


Dell, Edmund
Hynd, John
Norwood, Christopher


Dewar, Donald
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oakes, Gordon


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ogden, Eric


Dickens, James
Janner, Sir Barnett
O'Halloran, Michael


Dobson, Ray
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Doig, Peter
Jeger, George (Goote)
Oram, Albert E.


Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orme, Stanley


Dunn, James A.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oswald, Thomas


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Padley, Walter


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Paget, R. T.




Palmer, Arthur
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaater)


Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wallace, George


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Ryan, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Pavitt, Laurence
Sheldon, Robert
Weitzman, David


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Wellbeloved, James


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pentland, Norman
Short, Mrs. Renùe(W'hampton,N.E.)
Whitaker, Ben


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Silverman, Julius
Whitlock, William


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Smalt, William
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Snow, Julian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Price, William (Rugby)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Probert, Arthur
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Randall, Harry
Swain, Thomas
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Rankin, John
Taverns, Dick
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rees, Meriyn
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Winnick, David


Richard, Ivor
Thornton, Ernest
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Tomney, Frank



Roberts, Gwklym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Tuck, Raphael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenntth (St.P'c'as)
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. William Hamling.


Roebuck, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkaton Ash)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jopling, Michael


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Doughty, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Astor, John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony


Awdry, Daniel
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kimball, Marcus


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Eden, Sir John
Kitson, Timothy


Balniel, Lord
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Emery, Peter
Lambton, Viscount


Batsford, Brian
Errington, Sir Eric



Bell, Ronald
Eyre, Reginald
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Farr, John
Lane, David


Berry, Hn Anthony
Fisher, Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bessell, Pester
Fortescue, Tim
Lawler, Wallace


Biffen, John
Foster, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Fry, Peter
Longden, Gilbert


Black, Sir Cyril
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lubbock, Eric


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Body, Richard
Glover, Sir Douglas
MacArthur, Ian


Bossom, Sir Clive
Glyn, Sir Richard
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Goodhew, Victor
McMaster, Stanley


Braine, Bernard
Gower, Raymond
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Brewis, John
Grant, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maddan, Martin


Brown, Sit Edward (Bath)
Gurden, Harold
Maginnis, John E.


Bruce-Garlyne, J.
Hall-Davis, A. C. F.
Marpies, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bryan, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maude, Angus


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Burden, F A.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mawby, Ray


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maxwell-Hystop, R. J.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Carlisle, Mark
Hawkins, Paul
Milts, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hay, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Channon, H. P. G.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Chataway, Christopher
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Monro, Hector


Clark, Henry
Heseltine, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Clegg, Walter
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Cooke, Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hirst, Geoffrey
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cordle, John
Hogg, Rt Hn Quintin
Mott-Railclyffe, Sir Charles


Corfield, F. V.

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey


Craddook, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hooson, Emlyn
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Crouch, David
Hordern, Peter
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Crowder, F. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley


Currie, G. B. H.
Iremonger, T. L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Dance, James
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pardoe, John


Dean, Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Ctitheroe)




Peyton, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Silvester, Frederick
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Pink, R. Bonner
Sinclair, Sir George
Wall, Patrick


Pounder, Rafton
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Powell, Rt. Hn, J. Enoch
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Ward, Dame Irene


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Speed, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Pym, Francis
Stainton, Keith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stodart, Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wiggin, A. W.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Tapsell, Peter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Woodnutt, Mark


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Worsley, Marcus


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Temple, John M.
Wright, Esmond


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Wylie, N. R.


Royle, Anthony
Tilney, John
Younger, Hn. George


Russell, Sir Ronald
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.



Scott, Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Scott-Hopkins, James
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Sharples, Richard
Waddington, David
Mr. Jasper More.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government upon the fact that the nation's housing achievement in both the public and private sectors since October 1964 has been substantially greater than in the previous comparable period; deplores the efforts of Her Majesty's Opposition to dissuade local authoriies from continuing to meet the problems of obsolescence and overcrowding; notes with approval Her Majesty's Government's record post-war achievement in the field of slum clearance; and welcomes the Government's policy for the improvement and modernisation of older housing.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund Act, 1970.
2. Industrial Development (Ships) Act, 1970.
3. Food and Drugs (Milk) Act, 1970.

CALDERDALE WATER BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that there are many hon. and right hon. Members who wish to speak for or agains: the Bill. I would like to call them all if I can. It will depend on whether speeches are reasonably brief.

7.20 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I would like to remind the House, before I put the case for the Bill, that this is not a simple issue of beauty versus a reservoir and a dam, or a battle between those who appreciate beauty and those unable to appreciate it and who want to spoil our countryside with an ugly reservoir. It is not nearly so simple as that. There are probably very few hon. Members who have ever been to the site or this proposed reservoir, as I have. I know that some of my colleagues have, but the majority have never been near it.
There are very few of us who understand the enormously complex technical problems involved in the creation of a reservoir or a dam, engineering problems familiar to men who have worked for the water boards for many years, but problems which none of us without that experience could hope to master. It is a complicated and complex subject. Therefore, I recommend that we consider the evidence of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, which was set up to study the Bill. It did so over several weeks, examining witnesses in support of the Bill and in support of petitions and examining other parties in opposition to the Bill. The results of its discussions appear in a large number of complicated pages, giving the minute examination of witnesses.
The Committee wanted to know whether there was any need for these additional supplies of water and whether it could possibly be obtained from any other source. It decided that there definitely was a need, and it also decided in favour of a reservoir on this site, as laid out in the Bill. The additional supply of water needed—it was established,

urgently—was 7·3 million gallons a day. This is needed for the whole of this area, for industrial and domestic purposes. We must look into the future and realise the increasing requirements which will be made by factories, by the industrial expansion which we hope will take place, and which we are certain will take place in some cases, and by householders, who are no less important.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: The hon. Lady said "for the whole of this area". Would she say what area she is talking about?

Dr. Summerskill: It has been established that more water will be required both by the Calderdale Water Board, for Halifax and Brighouse and its immediate area, and also by the Wakefield District Water Board and the Mid-Calder Water Board, for which the Calderdale Board has a statutory obligation to supply water. It has established that by the 1980s, if we do not have further supplies, Halifax and Brighouse alone would have a deficit of 3¼ million gallons, and the group already suffers from a deficiency of 5·5 million gallons.
It has been saved from serious inconvenience only by the wet weather of recent years. It is firmly believed that if we wait until the Water Resources Board has given evidence, nothing can be done, even assuming that its recommendations were carried out, which is not certain, until the 1980s. This is definitely far too long for this area to wait.
I come now to the proposed site. I agree that this is a very beautiful site. I have seen it under snow, and even then it was beautiful, and I can see that on a summer's day it would be a delightful place for picnicking or walking. Let us be realistic about exactly where the reservoir will be. It is not proposed to put it in the same place as the earlier reservoir which was rejected by the House in 1948–49. It will be higher up the valley and invisible from Hardcastle Crags. which is the famous beauty spot that people go to see. This has nothing to do with Hardcastle Crags. It is proposed that of the National Trust land only 31·4 per cent. would be inundated by the reservoir and embankment.

Hon. Members: The whole of it.

Dr. Summerskill: When people say that this reservoir will take up National Trust land they should point out that it would take up only one-third and not the whole of it. A large part of the reservoir and what it involves will be on ordinary moorland, which has nothing to do with the National Trust.
It has been well established that although this is an amenity now, it will not necessarily be the case that this dam will be an ugly creation. In the 16th and 17th centuries rich men with the money to spend did not just allow their gardens to grow up naturally—they planned them. They brought into being lakes and sometimes streams. They made sure that the trees were planted properly and beatifully, so it does not follow that anything which is just left wild and to nature is, therefore, the most beautiful. Having talked to the people involved, I am confident that the greatest effort has gone into making this as beautiful a dam and reservoir as possible. It is possible to have a beautiful dam.
Anybody who knows anything about the subject knows the care and trouble which has gone into this proposition. Over £200,000 more is being spent on this scheme than on the previous scheme considered in 1948–49. Trees will be planted round the dam, and the dam itself will be landscaped and planted with trees in tiers to merge the dam with the landscape. The reservoir itself will be used as an amenity for the area for boating and yachting. I repeat that it will not be visible from Hardcastle Crags.
Various other sites have been proposed. The only other site considered by the Committee as at all reasonable was the building of a reservoir in the neighbouring Calder Valley. The Committee noted that this valley was shallow and open and of a completely different nature from the Hebden Valley. A reservoir in this valley would flood an area of cultivated farmland including six farms.
When the Committee visited the area it noticed that
…a dam would be visible from every part of the surrounding countryside.
Quite apart from these factors, that reservoir would not produce more than a total of 5·8 million gallons a day of water, and not reach the required supply of 7·3 m.g.d., which I mentioned earlier.

The Committee also did not consider that the scheme itself, which involves pumping back to the existing reservoirs, would be as satisfactory as the gravity flow system put forward by the promoters.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I presume that my hon. Friend has read the evidence. If so, she will have seen the comment by counsel for the water undertaking that the information was not available on this point. I would draw attention to the statement made by counsel that the position was very unsatisfactory—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even in a debate on a Private Bill interventions must be interventions, not speeches.

Dr. Summerskill: I agree that there is one statistic that is lacking.
The Committee, in its wisdom, decided that the amount of water produced, plus the location of this other proposal, made it not such a good proposal as the one that is in the Bill. At the same time, it would be in full operation far later than would the promoters' scheme. Apart from the missing factor, the other factors were taken into consideration and rejected. The Committee decided that the proposal and the suggestion put in the Bill was the only reasonable and reliable means of meeting the needs of the Calder Group.
It will be said that this is European Conservation Year. On the other hand, both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and myself are vice-presidents of an association to promote the development of the Calder Valley area. We should look into the 'seventies and the 'eighties with a desire to promote the development of the area and to help industry and domestic consumers to get water, which is an urgent necessity and not a luxury.
The promoters of the Bill, and certainly the people who will build the reservoir and the dam, are not entirely without feeling for the beauty of the countryside and the gift that this area is to all who visit it. I personally am confident that this reservoir will not detract from the beauty of the area.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to announce that I have not selected the Amendment


in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby:
That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months.
or that in the name of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton):
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill until the ground-water resources in the Calder Catchment Area as estimated in the Hydro-geological Report No. 4 published by the Natural Environment Research Council have been further investigated.
This will not affect the debate in any way. The points of view in each Amendment, together with many others, may be expressed.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) for the temperate and fair-minded way in which she ha s moved the Second Reading of the Bill. Nevertheless, it is an unusual experience for any hon. Member to hear another hon. Member discuss in intimate terms the contours, beauty and amenities of one's own constituency. My hon. Friend carried out her duty in a very agreeable way. Nevertheless, I felt a little sensitive about her objective judgment on matters which, from my point of view, inevitably are subjective.
I oppose the Bill and urge the House to reject it. I must try to satisfy the House that it is a reasonable and responsible thing to do and I must try to put the interests of my constituency in perspective with the interests of my neigh-bours.
I believe that I am doing more than fighting a constituency battle. The beauty and unique character of our varied countryside is the wonder and admiration of millions of people who are coming to this country in increasing numbers. Tourism is not merely a matter of people looking at the cities of Britain. It involves people coming to see our countryside, its green fields, woodland, cloud, crag and stream, much of which is unique in the world. I am fighting to preserve a little bit of that. I am sorry if this puts me at variance with some of my hon. Friends who have constituency interests in the supply of water from my constituency—Sowerby gives so much

and gets so little in return—but I am sure we shall not be estranged by being thrown into the same reservoir together.
The Bill is promoted by the Calderdale Water Board, to which I shall refer in a moment. I want, first, to deal with what the Bill proposes to do. It seeks to let the Calderdale Water Board construct a new reservoir in my constituency with an ultimate total capacity of 7·3 million gallons of water per day. It may be of passing interest to mention that the reservoir, if constructed, will be the eighteenth in my constituency. The Calderdale Water Board has seven reservoirs, Wakefield six, Rochdale three, and Huddersfield has one under construction.
The proposed new reservoir is to be called Overwood. It would submerge part of a deep valley of exceptional beauty. I was proud enough of the beauty of this valley to send a picture of it to every hon. Member, so that they could see it for themselves. The dam would cut right across the scene portrayed in that picture.
The valley known as Hebden Vale is three miles long and about one mile of the upper reaches of the valley would be dammed and submerged. The unique feature of the valley is that it descends from moorland and cuts into deep and rocky gorge down into the town of Hebden Bridge, 1,000 feet below. The wall of the dam would be about 200 feet.
The promoters make the point that the dam would cover a small area. The actual area of land involved is not large. Initially acquired would be about 450 acres, some of which would be returned after the works had been completed. The area of water would be about 163 acres. This is not one of those schemes involving large tracts of farmland. At present, the upper reaches are mainly pasture, rough grazing, or just something very lovely to look at as moorland scenery. When a gorge is submerged, obviously the area of water is not as large as if the reservoir were to cover a large area of undulating land. It is depth rather than width which will comprise the bulk of the reservoir.
The House may be sure that the local authorities and preservation societies, as well as the National Trust and scores of


bodies which were formed in 1948 to protect this valley, and which have defended it ever since, do not feel casually about this matter. They have been trying to fight off this scheme for 30 years. This particular valley has been deeply cherished by all who live near or frequent and value its attractions.
The first time an attempt was made on the valley was in 1934, but the Halifax County Borough Waterworks Department then retreated in face of bitter and widespread opposition. The next attempt was made in 1948 when a Bill was promoted in this House. Unhappily, that Bill came before the House when I was not Member for Sowerby. It went to the House of Lords where the reservoir clauses were struck out. The valley has remained inviolate since 1948–49 when the earlier Bill was amended in the House of Lords.
The sponsors of the Bill, the Calder-dale Water Board, comprise the Halifax Corporation water underaking and a number of smaller water undertakings which were merged in the Calderdale Water Board in 1961. This board has 22 seats, of which 11 are appointed by the County Borough of Halifax, Brighouse has 3 seats, and the remaining 8 seats are held by five local authorities in my constituency. None of the five local authorities in my constituency openly supports the Bill. One of the principal objectors is Hepton Rural District Council in whose area it is sited. Other objectors include the National Trust, the Hardcastle Crags Preservation Society and many other local bodies formed for the protection of this valley.
The case for the reservoir rests on estimated consumption within what is known as the Calder group of water undertakings. This comprises Calderdale, Mid-Calder, Wakefield and District Water Board and the Huddersfield county borough waterworks department. All these are separate undertakings with mutual obligations, some statutory and others merely those of good neighbours. I shall a little later examine more closely estimates of supply and demand.
I wish now to deal with the damage to the amenities which will be inflicted by this reservoir on this rare and precious

area of beauty, in a constituency which has many scars inherited from the industrial revolution.
On amenity grounds, the case against the Bill rests on something in life and environment which has no money price. I cannot talk about the loss of food production, about milk, cabbages or cattle. There will be some loss, it is true, but it will be too small to ask the House to take account of it.
The question is whether the House will now let go of what we in Sowerby have striven so hard and for so long to preserve. Is it possible that I can bring the House to take a stand on natural beauty in an area of ugly legacies from 19th century industialisation, of dereliction, discarded junk, crumbling mills, and, at present, economic decline? Can this be preserved? Will the House do it in an area like this?
My hon. Friend pointed out that this is European Conservation Year. An article appeared in the Spectator of 10th January last, by Mr. J. W. M. Thompson, which was apposite to this debate. He wrote:
…we are all conservationists now. The movement to protect and preserve the natural environment has gathered recruits at a rate which recalls that celebrated mass conversion to Christianity when a Chinese general had all his troops baptised by hosepipe.
He went on to say that the proof of conservation lay in what happened and not in what was talked about, and continued:
We are so unaccustomed to measuring value in any but money terms that we haven't even got a vocabulary with which to discuss the question without recourse to bureaucratic jargon about 'amenity value'. That is why the conservationist band-wagon, although suddenly crowded with passengers, is not necessarily going anywhere.
This is the issue.
It is true, as my hon. Friend said, that the Calderdale Water Board has engaged a landscape architect and has gone to a great deal of trouble. It is willing to incur greater expense to mitigate the harm that might be done by changing the whole character of the upper reaches of the valley. In the Report of the Select Committee of another place this aspect of the matter was referred to, but when I read the statement circulated to hon. Members this morning by the promoters of the


Bill I saw some things that I could not possibly accept. It was claimed in paragraph 4 of that statement that the reservoir would be an enhancement of amenity in the Hebden Valley. It said:
It will not affect in any way, or even be visible from, the well-known beauty spot of Harcastle Crags…
and on this man-made lake, we were informed, there would be fishing and sailing.
My first complaint—this is also a criticism of that Select Committee, which sought to divide this continuous and harmonious valley into two and call one "the upper" and the other "the lower" —is that this would entail changing the character and use of the area from its present form into something entirely different.
If sailing and fishing are desirable accompaniments of reservoirs, as I am sure they are, why is there neither sailing nor fishing on any of the 17 reservoirs in my constituency? Why are people not sailing there now? There is not one boat, or, as far as I know, one fish in any of the 17. I cannot accept that this would be a blessing in disguise. Is man going to improve on nature? When the people of my constituency are asked,"Cannot you see how good it will be?" their answer is, "No".
These are, of course, matters of taste, of subjective judgment, but bearing in mind that the local authority in whose district this site wholly lies is fighting against the Board's concept of enhanced amenity, one must ask why it is putting up such a fight, it being the representative body of the area, if everything would be so wonderful if this proposal went through. There must be good reason for the fight, and the reason is to tie found in the Report of the Select Committee, which said, on page 5:
The Committee consider that any manmade scheme would intrude upon the character of the whole Valley.
That is the whole point.
Certain people have views about the transformation of areas by reservoirs. For example, in a paper given by Lt. Colonel Haythornthwaite, entitled "What Price Water?", to the 30th National Conference of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, he said:

Structures built by man reflect the nature of the community which benefit from them There's no disguising the characteristic manin-the-mass domination of a block of flats or a motorway, for example, and this applies to a reservoir. It is essentially an urban structure and a limitation upon the state of nature and extension of the town. This may seem incomprehensible to some who enjoy naturally formed lakes; for what could be more beautiful or more complementary to the space and time scale of the country than a lake, and what's the difference? Both reservoirs and lakes are extensive tracts of water. So they are, but, with a few special exceptions, they differ in every essential, and in every essential they declare their provenance either from nature or from man-in-the-mass. The formation of the basin, in the case of a natural lake, is an inevitable consequence of the shape of the land. In the case of a reservoir a huge malformation of land in the form of a dam is required to hold the water and this contradicts the natural fall and flow of the land. This can be partly disguised on the outfall side but only from distant views below the level of the reservoir.
According to the Chairman of the Water Resources Board, Sir William Goode, who also gave a lecture to the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the impounding reservoir, which this would be, is becoming out of date. He spoke of the regulating reservoir becoming more greatly used and said:
More and more we are moving away from the traditional concept of using a reservoir simply to store water to be piped away to where it is needed. Today's reservoirs are designed to regulate the river. Water is stored not to go directly into supply but to be released into the river when its natural flow falls below a certain level. Winter rain is stored to be used to supplement low summer flows. For many months of the year the natural flow in a river is more than enough to support abstractions for water supply. The reservoir is only used to top up the river in dry periods. So a given amount of storage can maintain a far greater supply of water than the direct supply reservoir.
He expressed the hope that not only new reservoirs of this type would be constructed, but that existing reservoirs would be converted from impounding to regulating reservoirs.
Hon. Members may be interested in extracts from the Halifax Courier which underline what I have said about amenity. One was headed:
Hardcastle Crags: The case for preserving 'Little Switzerland'".
That was on 21st November, 1968. On 22nd November, 1968 the newspaper declared:
Flooding the Crags will mean losing our finest natural park.


I cannot hope to arouse the emotions of the House to match mine. For nearly 21 years I have represented this area and I know it back to front; every place in it. I feel far more deeply, as do many of my constituents, than any detached description—of rows of trees, the lapping of water, of sailing boats and fishing—could make one feel. The high amenity value of this area is conceded by all who have anything to do with its future.
What is its money price? Who can tell? This is the dilemma. We know that it will cost £5 million to construct the reservoir. I may be pardoned for being a little bitter when the Calderdale Water Board can propose £5 million of capital expenditure in the area of the Hebden Rural District Council when for months we have had held up a scheme costing a few thousand pounds to put some soil closets on the mains. Are water boards exempt from the restraints on capital expenditure?
We read from the report on the Bill that it will increase operating costs by 80 per cent. and will mean almost doubling the water rates and other charges by 1980, presumably at constant prices. I understand that the Minister accepts that this is inevitable if the board is to do its job. We must, therefore, consider what job the board must do.
In assessing the need for more water we must first consider the basis taken for the estimates of the millions of gallons of water that will be required each day. The primary estimate is called, in the words of the wafer engineers, the "safe, reliable yield", and that is based substantially on the driest season of recent years. It is not wholly based on that, but a large part of the reckoning in arriving at a "safe reliable yield" is the flow in one of the driest seasons of the century, and that was 1959.
There is a mathematical formula known as the Lapworth method, which also brings in the draw over a long period of years. The water men are cautious. They have a big responsibility and a statutory duty. They tell them-selves, "If this can happen once, it could happen again. We must be prepared for it and safeguard against it" It is no reproach to them to say that not only can they be wrong, they can be proved wrong.
In 1949, when Halifax Corporation brought the scheme to the House of Commons, the then Minister of Health said that additional supplies of water were "certainly necessary".
The local water authority, the Halifax Corporation, said that its additional requirements were 7·6 million gallons a day. An expert witness who appeared before the Select Committee in another place said at the time that, after studying the rainfall in this area for the past 50 years, he was of the opinion that there would be enough water there to meet the need for 10 years certain, and probably for 20 years more. That witness proved to be right, and the promoters admitted in the course of examination before the Select Committee that he was right.
For 20 years, the water board had no need for the reservoir which it said was so necessary in 1949. The Halifax Corporation Waterworks contrived to augment its supplies from elsewhere partly by moving the compensation gauge in one of its existing reservoirs and partly from a new supply. The result was that it was in comfortable surplus until recently.
Events proved that there was no real need for the Overwood reservoir in 1949. The authority managed on half the water that it said was then urgently necessary, and that is what the Select Committee in another place says of the miscalculation. After referring to the 1948–9 scheme, it says on page 3 of its Report:
It was found later that some of the estimates of consumption and yield were not borne out.
That, of course, is the temperate and sober language of another place.
Obviously the water authorities of 1948–9 could not have foreseen the decline in the staple industry in this area. They could not have foreseen the closure of mills by the score, resulting in redundancies by the thousand and large-scale migration. However, the record of rainfall in my constituency should have told them that dry summers, on which safe reliable yields are estimated, are all too rare in the Sowerby division, which is where the proposed reservoir is, and that the average rainfall of my constituency is between 130 and 140 per cent. of the national average. There is almost always


more water lying about in my constituency than the whole area could possibly consume.
I come now to the story of 1969. In June, when the Select Committee was sitting in another place, what no one knew was that my constituency was about to have the driest October for 22 years and one of the driest summers on record. On Thursday, 19th June, Mr. Gray, the Calderdale Engineer and Manager, told the Committee that it was fortunate that there had not been a drought. for 10 years. He went on:
If one had taken place, difficulties would have arisen in maintaining supplies at their present level.
There was one, and what happened? The lowest ebb in the Calderdale supplies was reached at the end of October, when there were still 84 days of water in stock, compared with 159 days when the reservoirs are full, and compared with 58 days in 1959. They were well over half-full at the end of one of the driest periods that we had had for many years.
Then rain came, and the level went up from 84 days to 96 days in only two days. It rained hard as one would expect it to do towards the end of October, and Mr. Gray was moved to comment on this unexpected situation. On 5th November, he was reported in the Halifax Courier as saying:
One may ask why we need to build another reservoir in our area when we are so much better off than our neighbours. One reason is that these neighbours have reservoirs under construction and if another drought occurred they obviously would not be so badly off. So far as rainfall is concerned we have been very fortunate with the rain on our gathering ground this year. The only real anxiety I had dining the drought was over Cold Acre, a reservoir which serves part of Stainland",
which is in my constituency.
As I said, the average rainfall in the district is between 130 and 140 per cent. of the national average. The total rainfall for the year to 30th November, 1969, was 33·51 inches, compared with 47·13 inches in the corresponding year before. In October, we had 0·85 inches of rain. Then the deluge came, and we had 7½ inches of rain in the month of November. All anxieties were over, not in weeks but in days.
Ever with this low rainfall in 1969. the Calderdale Water Board had no real

difficulties. In The Times of 23rd January, tucked away on the women's page for some reason, there was a very good map showing rainfall in England. The accompanying article said:
Over England and Wales generally, rain fall for the period June to October was only 68 per cent. of average; in the past 100 years there have been only three drier such periods and these occurred in the memorable dry years of 1921, 1947, and 1959.
Yet Calderdale came through 1969 without any restriction in its services.
Wakefield was not in such a favourable position. The Wakefield and District Water Board ran down to 55 days of water in stock. One of Wakefield's reservoirs in my constituency fell by 33 ft., to less than half capacity. The board was in difficulty, though not in serious difficulty. I do not minimise the problem in a water authority when it has to impose restrictions, even if they are on such uses as car washing and the hosing of gardens. People resent the restrictions. They do not like them, and very often they ignore them. However, Wakefield applied for a drought order to reduce the compensation water from one of its reservoirs by a million gallons a day. I understand that, in the event, it did not have to use it, because the rain came in time.
That is the story of two dry summers. The reservoirs in my constituency, at the lowest ebb for years, still had enough water at the end of October to last over Christmas without a single drop of rain.
I am sorry to have to take so much of the time of the House, but I have to try to convince hon. Members that the Select Committee in another place was wrong, and I am trying to adduce evidence which will undermine the belief which too many people have in the validity of what is described as the safe reliable yield.
When we come to consumption or demand, we run into a new area of difficulty and speculation. I understand that demand is based on a mathematical projection which is actual consumption over some years past projected into anticipated consumption in future years. Domestic consumption in the Calderdale Water Board area, for example, has risen by 4·5 per cent. in the last ten years and 3·1 per cent. in the last 15 years. This apparently leads to the estimate that domestic consumption will rise by the year 2000 in the Calderdale area to 65


gallons per head per day, which is almost double the existing level of consumption. But the comparable estimate for Wakefield is as low as 50 and for Leeds 52.
I do not know what is the matter with my constituents or with the citizens of Halifax and elsewhere that they will apparently use 15 gallons of water per head per day more for domestic purposes than in Leeds or in Wakefield. I do not wish to hear any snide remarks about the great unwashed or the unlaundered, because they turn themselves out as sprightly as the citizens of Wakefield and Halifax. One explanation is that 7,000 houses in the Calderdale area have still to be connected and that many of the private supplies are unreliable on health grounds and will have to be connected to the mains.
Nothing is ever said in all these estimates about economy in the use of water. The wastefulness of our toilet arrangements is apparently to continue. Car washing and yard swilling is to come off the mains, even in areas like mine where there is enough water lying about in disused mill dams and canals to wash every car in Yorkshire.
Water is cheap—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too cheap"] I believe that the Calder-dale Board is selling water to its customers at the cut price of a shilling for 1,000 gallons. Water is the one thing that my constituency has which many others have not. We have poor local authorities, loss of population, declining industrial activity and a fall in rateable value, but water is going cheap at a shilling for 1,000 gallons. Sowerby ought to be saying, "You want the best water. We have it, and this is the price". Then perhaps the economic prosperity of my constituency could be restored by selling the only natural resource that it has. But, no, it must be supplied on the cheap so that others can wash their cars at a shilling per 1,000 gallons.
Are we not going to urge people to use water with care? Are we going to regard a short period of restriction as some hardship for which the water people will be blamed, not the sunshine? Do we want it both ways all the time: a dry, beautiful summer and still go on using water at our accustomed rate?
Unfortunately, no one can see any comfort beyond 1981. This is described as a bridging operation. I do not ask the House to despise bridging operations. I supported one just before Christmas. I hope that the bridge is still there. We shall have to find a more comprehensive way of settling our water problems after the next 10 years. We cannot go on as we are.
My hon. Friend talked about the needs of the local areas which come within the Calderdale water group. I see a reference in the circular issued by the promoters to a population of 190,000, but their letter does not mention that the estimate for the decline of population in this same area by 1981 is that it will have fallen to just over 180,000.
The headline in my local paper is,"Working population falls by 400.
That is in a small town called Hebden Bridge. The headline in the Halifax Courier is:
Able young folk are 'being lost to Halifax area'. This is way of death, says Bishop.
Unhappily, the population is in decline. The Government did not accept the Report of the Hunt Committee to put the whole of my area and others, too, in the intermediate areas. Only one little slice of my constituency is included in the intermediate areas. So our hopes of getting stimulation of industrial activity and economic expansion have been dashed.
The main reason for this reservoir is not to supply the Calderdale area, but to fulfil obligations, some statutory and some self-assumed increased statutory obligations contained in the Bill. I refer to bulk supplies to Wakefield and bulk supplies to Mid-Calder. But all the estimates of requirements in other areas, as well as the Calderdale Water Board area, are on the formula "safe, reliable yield".
I will not weary the House by going through all the figures of the several water boards which are looking for additional supplies from my constituency. I can sum it up by an extract from Day 2 of the proceedings of the Select Committee in another place on 11th June when Mr. Heatherington, the expert adviser to the promoters, was asked:
So really the position is this—it is not Calderdale Water Board that needs the water; it is Wakefield?


A. It is largely Wakefield, yes.
Q. So far as Mid-Calder and Huddersfield is concerned, they balance each other: in 1981 one (Mid-Calder) has a small deficiency and the other a small surplus?
A. Yes. That is assuming that the Windscar scheme is implemented for Mid-Calder.
There is no doubt that Wakefield is in difficulties, but unhappily the Bill will not remove them. Wakefield came to my constituency in 1957 for additional supplies. It was to collect just over 775 million gallons. But, before it was finished, Wakefield had taken over additional responsibilities to put spring supplies on the mains in some of its outlying areas and it needed extra water.
So, as a friendly act, a reservoir which it had built was connected through a tunnel to another valley, so there was an additional supply of water forthcoming there. Boothwood, a new reservoir under construction, will add another 2½ million gallons a day to Wakefield. But, when everything is taken into account, including 1 million gallons a day from a new reservoir at Scammonden, being constructed for Huddersfield, it looks as though Wakefield will have a deficiency, based on the estimates that I have given, of something over million 3 gallons a day.
During the course of examination, the petitioners were asked by the promoters, "If it is not this place, tell us of another". This provided the classic turn of events to all these inquiries, "If you object to this scheme, show us an alternative and we will look at it". So the comparatively rich Calderdale Water Board turns on a poor rural council, the National Trust and all the smaller preservation societies to find somewhere else.
This is the way it goes. The onus of proof is put on the petitioner. Some alternatives were closely examined. Others were not examined in full detail, because some material information was missing. One of them could not be fully examined because it depended upon the extraction of water from a river, and no one could say whether the flow of extraction proposed would get the consent of the river authority. This is dealt with in a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in another place, on 13th November, a copy of which has been circulated to all hon. Members.
Hon. Members will ask, "If we reject the Bill, what will happen then? Would

it be a responsible thing to do?". I turn for part of my answer to the Water Resources Board. It undertook no detailed assessment of this scheme. Consulting engineers expect to complete their own feasibility studies on the Morecambe Bay barrage. The board expects to report to the Minister by about 1971. In evidence this year the board said that it was still its hope that
these barrage supplies, or alternatives if they be selected, will be available about 1981.
That was the evidence of Mr. Gibb, the chief engineer to the Water Resources Board.
If that is the programme, should we not pause before going on with this bridging operation? Is my constituency, the town of Hebden Bridge, and the rural district of Hepton, to be churned up by lorries, muck, and slime, for three years while they are building this reservoir which cannot produce a gallon of water before 1974? There are no roads to this site. They will have to be constructed, which means that they will change the whole character of the countryside.
I say that the Bill can wait. As we are within sight of the comprehensive survey of the north by the Water Resources Board, it would be better to wait now and see what it offers in 1971. Meanwhile, if the Bill is rejected—and I think that I can firmly contemplate that —alternative supplies will be diligently examined. This is just another impounding reservoir. Cannot some work be done on impounding reservoirs to convert them into regulating reservoirs? Is nothing more to be said about economy? Is nothing to be said to appliance manufacturers, house-builders, and industry?. If we are to have another 13 million people in this country by the year 2000, is it too fanciful to think of North Sea water, as well as North Sea gas? There is no part of our economy in which there has been so much laisser faire as in water and there has been no part of our parliamentary procedure quite so vexatious as this.
We make suitable obeisances to environment, and to the preservation of natural beauty, but the same incantations come out every time—"unavoidable", "inevitable", "regrettable necessity", "needs must when the devil drives". One by one they go under the water. The Minister will no doubt advise the


House that "on balance the Bill should be allowed to proceed". This is another form, meaning get on with it, we want it. The Minister gives the impression that he has really studied the matter impartially—on the one hand, on the other, and on balance. Many a piece of countryside has been desecrated by a decision taken on balance. The Minister said that the board is urgently in need of additional supplies, both to meet the needs of its area and the areas of the two boards to whom it supplies water in bulk. But the Minister said the same in 1969. Indeed, in a paper which the Ministry published on 21st May, he said:
…it has been estimated that in 1969 consumption will outstrip the reliable yield of the Board's sources by 1¾ million gallons per day.
It never did.
I conclude by saying that over-insurance on water supplies is enormous and extravagant. I hope that the House, in its sober judgment, will say "No" to the Bill. Let us await the northern study by the Water Resources Board, which we hope to have in a year's time. We can then see the problem in wider perspective, with an assessment of a more comprehensive and adequate solution.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mx. Houghton) has spoken with eloquence and a deep knowledge of his constituency against the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this so completely that there is no need for me to follow in that direction.
I want, if I may, to bring the House to the wider aspect of the Bill. As the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said in a very temperate speech, the case of the promoters is that for a period of seven years from 1974 to 1981 there is a need for the extra water brought by this reservoir. For that purpose the proposal is to submerge for all time land which belongs to the National Trust, in other words, a national heritage. The hon. Lady said that it was only one-third of the National Trust Land. I thought that that was her weakest argument.
After all, before National Trust land is taken, submerged and destroyed, surely

those who wish to destroy it must have an absolutely overwhelming case for so doing and I cannot, having read all that the promoters have put forward, and listened with great care to the hon. Lady, say that she has made an overwhelming case for destroying that acreage of National Trust land.
I think that I have an even stronger argument. I believe the House has to take a stand against the piecemeal way in which we deal with the water problem. It may well be that in this instance Halifax or Wakefield may suffer, but I believe that we as a nation would gain if we in this House took that stand.
I remind the House that the last reservoir Bill that we had was the Welland and Nene (Empingham Reservoir) and Mid-Northamptonshire Water Bill. When the House sent that Bill to a Committee the chairman of that Committee felt so strongly about the weakness of the way in which Parliament was dealing with water Bills that he made a Special Report, and perhaps I might read from it.
It said:
…Your Committee consider it their duty to bring to the attention of the House their view that there is urgent necessity to study alternative supplies of water. They therefore strongly recommend that a feasibility study of the Wash Barrage be undertaken immediately.
If that scheme and the Morecambe Bay scheme went forward, there would be no need for this mass of engineering projects dealing with little reservoirs, destroying amenity and agricultural land.
This is not the only possibility. Those hon. Members who read the Yorkshire Post will have read today that the Yorkshire Ouse and Hull River Authority, the river authority for the Calderdale area, yesterday announced that it is sponsoring research at Leeds University into the underground water sources of its catchment area, at a cost of £100,000. I wish to congratulate it on its far-sightedness and its wisdom. What a pity this was not done many years ago.
But part of the work has been done. In 1963, the predecessor of this river authority, the Yorkshire Ouse River Board, commissioned a geological survey to prepare an outline report on the geology of the ground water resources of the river catchments under its jurisdiction. This was done under the auspices of


the Natural Environment Research Council. The report, published, I think, in July last year, shows that there is a ground water potential of 80 million gallons per day in the Calder catchment, and that the present quantity being abstracted is 8·8 million gallons. Thus, 89 per cent. of the ground water resources is untapped and about 71 million gallons per day are available.
After all, this project, at the most that the promoters can make of it, is to produce only an additional 7 million gallons per day. In view of the river authority's attitude and the report, which was not available when the Bill went to the House of Lords, I ask the promoters to hesitate before taking National Trust land and dealing with this matter in this piecemeal fashion.
I know that there is a great attraction in grandiose engineering schemes. We are very proud of our engineers; they are one of our great exports. But do not let us damage for ever the amenities or the agriculture of the country because we have not taken the time, in the House and the Government, to work out a true water policy for Britain.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I begin by saying how much I agree with part of what the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said about the urgent need for this House to give serious consideration to a national water policy. That is absolutely crucial and vital, but here we are dealing with an immediate problem which will affect a tremendous number of people for the next three or four years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) was absolutely right when she summed up what the Bill is all about by saying that it was a necessity not a luxury. The Bill seeks to provide for people in those areas of the West Riding of Yorkshire where there are to be growth points and great development of industry requiring water and all that it means. It is crucial that that water should be made available.
For reasons of which the House knows—we might at some time consider changing the rules—for certain hon. Members who represent, for example, Wakefield, Pontefract, and probably other places, by virtue of holding office in the

Government are debarred from taking part in a debate which is important to their constituents. The House should look at this matter at some future date. Wakefield, Featherstone, Castleford and other parts of the West Riding depend on water being made available and in ample supply. I am informed that there is to be what is called "a five towns explosion" in those areas which could mean tremendous demands on the water supplies.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said that he had represented his constituency for 21 years. One can understand that after listening to his speech tonight. It was a magnificent constituency speech of which he and his constituents can be proud, but I wish that on great issues such as this we could move away from the parochial and look at the really serious problems which confront us. It is no use saying that this would be the 18th reservoir in his constituency as if that were something to be ashamed of. I wish there were 18 in my constituency.
I am sure many hon. Members who represent mining constituencies would be more than willing to have reservoirs in them rather than the scars and slag heaps which are the remnants of the Industrial Revolution. People in the areas of the West Riding of Yorkshire not far removed from Huddersfield, in the Wakefield, Castleford and Pontefract areas, would be only too pleased for slag heaps which mar and scar their localities to be removed and to have the satisfaction of having reservoirs—purpose-built if necessary—to ensure that facilities for leisure and recreation could be provided.
My right hon. Friend made a point which might appear valid, that on many reservoirs in his constituency fishing, boating and sailing do not take place. Of course many of those reservoirs are old and were not constructed for that purpose, but it is implicit in this Bill that facilities shall be made available for those things. Those promoting the Bill intend to fulfil that obligation. The House should give serious consideration to the Bill and I hope it will support it. It authorises the building of a reservoir in the upper reaches of the Hebden Valley, which I know well from the time when as a youth I did a lot of walking and cycling in that area.
The Bill gives Parliament a simple choice between preserving the amenities of the area or providing supplies of water at an economical cost. I believe that the way in which the Bill has been drafted and the way in which the promoters have put forward their proposals would mean that we could get the best of both worlds. Where it is possible to preserve them, the amenities would be preserved and the water which is necessary to industry and for domestic users would be made available.
My right hon. Friend circulated with the briefs which were sent out, a lovely photograph, but it was totally misleading. I am informed—in fact I know—that there will be no desecration of the part of the valley shown on that postcard photograph. Hardcastle Crags, which is well known throughout Yorkshire and among tourists throughout the country, will not be affected by the scheme submitted by the promoters.

Mr. Houghton: The photograph was one of those included in the evidence to the Select Committee in another place. My advice is that the dam would cross in the middle of the photograph.

Mr. Lomas: I accept my right hon. Friend's point, but I am assured that that part of the valley would not be affected.
My right hon. Friend said that the only reason for the Bill and the creation of the dam was the exporting of water. We must abandon such attitudes. Areas in the West Riding have supplied other areas, not with water—a natural asset—but with the coal that their people dug from the bowels of the earth. They did this in the interests of the area as a whole. A purpose-built reservoir will enhance the area and make it a place of beauty; and the promoters have gone into great detail about the way in which this will be done.
If we can only accept the need, on the one hand, for water to be supplied to these areas and, on the other, the economic reasons why this must be done, we shall come to terms with reality and not live in something approaching a dream world. I therefore hope that the Bill will receive the support that it deserves.
The Calderdale Board will construct the reservoir by means of a dam across the Hebden Water about 10 miles to the

north-west of Halifax. The object of the exercise is to ensure that water is supplied where it is needed. For the first few miles from New Bridge the valley slopes are very densely wooded. This part includes that part of Yorkshire of which we are very proud—the Hardcastle Crags. The upper part of the valley around there is bare and open moorland. The transition from woodland to moorland is acute. I am assured by the promoters that if the scheme goes ahead the embankments of the dam will not be visible from the lower part of the valleys except at close range, first because of the densely wooded slopes and, second, because of the bend in the valley below and that walkers will continue to enjoy the area's natural beauty.
I am also assured and accept that the Calderdale Board has been concerned to protect the area's amenities. I am glad that my right hon. Friend recognised that the board has engaged the services of landscapers and other experts so that by the planting of trees and other such steps the worst features of the dam, if there are any, will be shielded from public view and car parks will be provided. The Pennine Way, of which we are rightly proud. will not be affected by the scheme.
To oppose the Bill purely on the ground of damage to amenity is not to face reality and the challenges of the 1970s and 1980s. Areas in that part of the West Riding are in urgent need of the water for industrial and domestic purposes. I quote from the memorandum submitted by my right hon. Friend, under the heading
The House of Commons should reject this Bill".
It reads:
This is European Conservation Year—a suitable moment for reflection on what we are doing with our own country. We have a new Minister 'for Civilisation'…Pollution and erosion of our environment are now evils to be seriously tackled by Government. Here is an opportunity for the House of Commons to register is own concern.
I agree with that entirely. I also agree with the way in which this dam will eradicate a lot of the evils of the past. It will provide the facilities for leisure and recreational activity which people in the West Riding are anxious to have. Because of that and the economic benefit that the building of this dam will bring to many areas in the West Riding, I


earnestly hope that the Bill will be supported by the House tonight.

8.46 p m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), in his magnificent exposicion in opposition to the Bill, referred to it as being "more than a constituency matter". I am glad he used that phrase. He might have added that it is more than a party matter. It affects the whole country and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has said, it reflects on the way in which Parliament deals with Bills relating to water supply.
I recognise at once that there is a considerable problem in supplying the water needs of this nation, but to do so there is no necessity to adopt a highhanded method in presenting Bills to this House and asking that they be passed when they cause the maximum despoliation to the countryside. If the Bill were passed it would authorise the Calderdale Water Board to take from its present owners, I understand, a very important area of the Hebden Vale, in order to dam it by a vast structure rising about 200 ft. from the floor of the valley to create this additional reservoir.
I feel most strongly that the House should not allow this to happen. It would destroy an area of great beauty—which I have the pleasure of knowing myself—and even if the extra water is needed its provision should not be made at such a sacrifice. I hope that the House will net need convincing further than by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that the vale is exceptionally lovely, but if there are any doubts they can surely be resolved by the attitude taken by two major organisations.
The National Trust, which owns part of the land which is due to be flooded, is passionately opposed to the violation of the beauty of the land which it holds for the enjoyment of the public. Equally opposed is the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. In case any hon. Member should feel that those bodies are too remote from reality or too remote from the scene—and I do not take that view—we have the same evidence from local bodies to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred in detail.
I am impressed by the fact that the Hepton Rural District Council has been so consistent in its opposition, because, after all, it has committed the ratepayers' money to fighting this intrusion. It has not been tempted, as many local authorities might be, by the prospect of increased rateable value. On the contrary, it has fought for this valley because it feels it is a place of exceptional value and is enjoyed in its present state by those who live in the district.
But it is not only those who live in the district with which we are concerned. The area serves the people who live in the great cities which were thrown up during the Industrial Revolution. It is an area to which the people in those cities can escape and find peace and tranquility. I do not believe that their escape should be marred in this way. I hope that the majority of hon. Members will feel, as I do, that places of exceptional amenity value should not be marred unless there is a proven case that the extra water supply is imperative and can only be found at that one spot.
There is no such proof. Other hon. Members, I know, will deal more fully with the argument that there is no need for additional water to be found in the valley. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby has already dwelt on that aspect at some length, pointing out that even the promoters agree that they do not require the extra water save for a stop-gap period which will end in the 1980s. I shall concentrate on another point, that even if the need for extra water from this valley had been established there is not proof that it cannot be found except by perpetrating the proposed reservoir in Hebden Vale.
It is, I fear, a feature of our system that whenever a water authority decides that it needs a reservoir, our practice is to give it every facility to acquire all the land it wants by compulsory powers. As the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, Water Bill after Water Bill comes before Parliament and is passed carelessly. True, objectors may petition against a Bill, they may be represented by counsel before a Committee of this House or the other place, but the dice are loaded against them.
The water authority is not required to show that it has gone into all the alternatives and that all are ruled out for convincing reasons. The water authority can find all the money it needs from the water rate to secure technical advice and demonstrate that the scheme of its choice should be adopted. It can brief the best and most expensive counsel to argue its case and shoot down that of the objectors.
In the present case, the petitioners, amenity bodies and a small rural district council, have no such technical advisers. I understand that, far from providing them with technical information, the water board in this instance has deliberately withheld vital information so as to use it during the hearing to demolish the first variant of the petitioners alternative.
I hope that the House will accept that the present system is not fair and does not ensure what we ought to insist upon, namely, that whenever a demand is made for another reservoir, there is proof that its location has been settled only after a truly impartial survey of all the alternatives.
I was, therefore, surprised to receive this morning by post a letter from the clerk of the North and Mid Cornwall Water Board, the headquarters of which is in my constituency, urging me to support the Bill. I have a great respect for the clerk and a great respect for the board which he serves, but I do not think it appropriate that Members of Parliament should be lobbied in this manner, and I do not hesitate to say so.
I quote from the letter:
Water undertakings"—
says the clerk—
in this country are almost all in charge of unpaid councillors giving of their time for the public good and are staffed by a body of men and women whose record of devotion to their job of supplying water to the nation is second to none. There has never, needless to say, been a strike in the water industry.
I concede what the clerk says. He goes on:
After spending all my working life, over 30 years, in this industry. I think I can say that it is used to frustrations and expects no thanks for its efforts. However, in recent years, arising to some extent from the well-intentioned provisions of the Water Resources Act, 1963, the frustrations have increased, and now

we have this new development whereby water undertakings struggling to carry out their statutory duties are depicted as land-grabbing despoilers of the countryside. The fact that any such alleged 'despoliation' is not only essential but urgently required to meet the ever rising demand for water appears to be too often overlooked.
When water boards start writing to Members of Parliament in those terms, it is time for Members to look with anxiety not only to constituencies such as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby, but with anxiety for the future, perhaps, to their own constituencies.
In the present case, as I have said, the petitioners, hampered by the obstruction of the Calderdale Water Board, still managed, with the help of a consultant engineer, to produce an alternative scheme which would avoid this outrageous dam. In essence, it would have let the Hebden water continue to flow down the whole length of the valley, to be tapped at a lower point by direct abstraction from the stream. This, however, they supplemented by a reservoir off a side valley.
In the House of Lords Committee, my noble Friend, Lord Foot, who was one of the minority who voted against this scheme, in a powerful speech pointed out that the majority finding was most unsatisfactory. The petitioners' alternative scheme, produced under great difficulties, have been rejected on such an hypothesis. entirely on an assumption by the majority of the Committee that the Water Authority would probably not allow so much water to be abstracted from the stream. It seems to me quite monstrous that the petitioners' alternative scheme should have been rejected on such a hypothesis. The facts should have been ascertained and I suggest that it has been proven that there can be an alternative scheme.
The outstanding beauty of this valley should not be marred by a reservoir which may well be unnecessary, even for the stopgap period for which the promoters say it is required. Here, I refer the House to the facts given by the right hon. Member for Sowerby. This and other water boards should not be allowed to get away in outdated procedure which gives no opportunity for independent scrutiny of whether water cannot be found by alternative schemes, and I have


no sympathy with those boards, even the board in my constituency, which seek to short-circuit the present system and the democratic procedures we use. The petitioners' alternative should not be dismissed on assumed probabilities, as has been the case in this instance. For all these reasons, I urge the House to refuse the Bill a Second reading.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. David Ginsburg: The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) referred to a possible alternative scheme. That is surely an argument for letting the Bill go to Committee for examination and not for opposing it outright.
I rise to support the Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), but first I compliment my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on the presentation of his case. If I may say so, his speech and the document which he circulated to us a few days ago constitute a classic in the respectable art of parliamentary obstruction. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said, respectable art.
I would like to have supported my right hon. Friend tonight. We have close personal I links. I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary for a number of years. We support each other at general elections and our constituencies share the same river, the Calder. I know the great beauty of his constituency and I would be loath to spoil it in any way.
But, equally, I have a duty to my constituents, especially the County Borough of Dewsbury, which is in the area of the Mid-Calder Water Board, and the Borough of Ossett, which is in the Wakefield and District Water Board. Like other boroughs, they need more water and are looking to this House to protect their legitimate interests. If, therefore, I concentrate my argument on my constituents' need for more water, I believe that I am fulfilling my own parliamentary responsibility.
I want to demonstrate that need beyond doubt. I do not think that it is my duty to deal with the specific merits of one site in my right hon. Friend's constituency against another. That, as I have said, is an argument not for denying the Bill its Second Reading, but for letting it go to the Select Committee for further examination.
It is perhaps significant that, in his powerful document—and my right hon. Friend has done very thorough research —he did not venture to criticise the arguments deployed so far as the Mid-Calder Water Board is concerned. This may be because he realised that our case is indeed a strong one, and he is quite right. The board itself enjoys statutory rights to 1 million gallons a day and the Bill would increase those rights by a further 0.7 million gallons a day. I stress that this additional statutory engagement is the maximum that the Calderdale Water Board would offer us. It is, I believe, the case that the Mid-Calder Water Board needs and could take more, and it is the advice I have been given that the connecting main between the two authorities could take more water.
My constituency is an area which is beset by water deficits in an era of civilisation which itself is prone to water deficits. It should be borne in mind that part of the supply of Mid-Calder which has been coining from the City of Bradford is not statutory. Some of this is coming to an end just now and the balance that we will still receive from Bradford is not, I would say, simply in jeopardy. We believe that it will come to an end in the next two years. Bradford needs its water and it can no longer be an exporter of water.
Looking at the picture in one's own constituency, one is bound to strike a budget of water resources and water demand and, even allowing for the qualifications which my right hon. Friend made about safe yields, the figures cause one concern. I agree that we are dealing with a bridging operation, but that does not mean that the problem is not real. In 1970, consumption will be 9·2 million gallons a day and we have resources of 7·6 million gallons, a deficit of 1·6 million, which is a very serious situation to be in.
In 1973, although the Mid-Calder area is not a growing area yet economically, although we hope it soon will be again, consumption should rise to 9·8 million gallons a day. Happily, resources will come up a million to 8·6 million gallons and the deficit goes down. But I must make the point, particularly to my right hon. Friend, that this hopeful development depends upon the success of the water board in creating a reservoir in a


isused colliery in an urban part of my constituency.
This will be a very tricky engineering task. There are all sorts of unsolved technical and legal problems as well relating to mining subsidence, if it were to arise after the water board had assumed responsibility. The present budget provides for this in 1973, and very good luck to the board if it manages it. The picture will be a little easier. By 1974, when consumption goes up to 10 million gallons, resources go up to 9·3 million. This is if we get the Calderdale water. If we do not, our deficit is 1·4 million. If we have not had the water from the colliery by then the deficit is even greater.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: My hon. Friend refers to the Calderdale water. Would he not agree that if the Bill is not passed the water board will look for other sites?

Mr. Ginsburg: The point surely is that we are dealing with a short-term crisis, over 10 years. Knowing the rate of progress and the chances of promoting Private Members' Bills, and the account that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby has given of 20 years with the Bill, we will have that sort of water in 1985 or 1990.
But that is not the problem we face. It is a short-term problem. In 1976, demand will be 10·3 million gallons and resources 9·3 million. We can get by at this point because we have a major gasworks which the North-Eastern Gas Board plan to phase out. Thus, the requirement for water will fall. Again these things have a way of taking a lot longer than planned, so that, here again. the deficit figures could be substantially larger than budgeted.
It is not until 1977–78 that we begin to see the prospect of a major improvement in supplies. That can only be achieved if the project known as Winscar Reservoir is brought to fruition. This, again, depends on bringing this project to completion at very great speed. The Mid-Calder water area has a serious water deficit, not in the 1980s and 1990s, but in the short term. Projections are hazardous and dangerous. The deficit is in the 1970s and the mid-Calder water would be very useful

indeed. I am, therefore, bound to ask: what happens if the House does not give the Bill a Second Reading? The reservoir will not be built and my constituents will not get the water. Who is responsible? Not the Minister. We hope to have some friendly words from him this evening, but in the strict sense the Government are neutral, even though the Minister supports the Bill.
In a sense, if the Bill is not given a Second Reading this House is responsible. How long will it take to get alternative sites? Does someone else have to promote another Bill? I mention this because it seems that we need to review our procedures about water legislation. In this case I would have much preferred a public inquiry, with the Minister coming to the House and taking responsibility for what has to be done.
Water is an important national service and as a layman it seems to me that we need a water grid, and much closer integration of authorities with Ministerial responsibility at the end of the line. I hope, therefore, that this will be one of the last, if not the last, battle of its kind. Meanwhile, so long as our procedures remain as they are, I end by stressing my constituents' need for more water and my support for the Bill.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The debate has perhaps reached the stage when the House would like to have the assistance of the Minister. No doubt the Minister is waiting until he is able to answer the views from the Opposition Front Bench, although this is a Private Bill and one does not like to take a strong line either way. The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) put the case for the Bill very logically and reasonably She pointed out the industrial and domestic need, the lack of alternative sites which would be practical in meeting that need and the way in which amenities would be preserved. That was stressed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg).
The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) put his case in a rather more emotional strain, which is not surprising, as he has told the House he already has 17 reservoirs in his constituency. He asked the House to take a


stand on natural beauty in an area of dereliction. He said that the reservoir would intrude upon the character of the whole valley. In a very apt quotation he said that conservation lies in what happens and not in what is talked about. Perhaps the Minister of State would convey that quotation to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who, by his speeches on this subject lately, has almost earned himself the title of "Mr. Pollution".
I hope that some action will be taken, and this is perhaps a Bill on which such action could be taken. The House is put in extreme difficulties by an issue of this sort. It is an issue that cuts across parties and it is part of a procedure which the right hon. Member for Sowerby has described as "vexatious" and which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) described as "not fair". In this case we are asked to say whether or not National Trust property should be submerged in a reservoir. Some such problem arises on every Water Bill. On each occasion lately the arguments and conflicts have become fiercer. This is obviously because of the increasing need for water. That need is set against an increasing desire to preserve amenity.
There is no doubt about the increasing need. We are now, as the right hon. Member for Sowerby implied, a nation of flusters. Car washing is in strong competition on a Sunday morning with church services, and in most cases it wins. 'We are extravagant with water, and would not like to cut down upon that extravagance. Therefore, we have to fill that need.
On the other hand, as the Prime Minister has appreciated in recent speeches, there is an increasing desire to preserve amenities. I ask the Minister of State whether the Government have a policy on this matter. Is there to be some firm Government policy on water preservation, or is it, as the hon. Member for Bodmin said, a policy of water Bill after water Bill?
If the Prime Minister is serious about the environment and the prevention of pollution, I am sure nobody in the House would complain if the Government were to come forward today and say, "We have already gone too far in piecemeal legislation. We must find a more com-

prehensive way of solving our water problems".
The right hon. Member for Sowerby asked why we could not await the Water Resources Board's survey. That survey may tell us that, our desire for the use of water being so great, we must put up with the destruction of amenities. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West said that the need is great and immediate. On the other hand, that survey may say that the ground water potential should be exploited, or that we should concentrate on barrages in estuaries and be prepared for lengthy pipelines. The hon. Member for Dewsbury mentioned a grid system. I personally favour that, and feel that the right way to proceed is by barrages in estuaries. I am to some extent supported in that view by the report of a Select Committee on a previous Water Bill.
Surely this Bill can wait for the survey which is expected in 1971, in the meantime we should have a statement of Government policy nationally on water conservation. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give a forecast, at least, about the preparation of Government policy. We cannot go on with these piecemeal Water Bills, with hon. Members being put into an extremely difficult position each time they are brought before the House. It is not only a matter of the conflict of increasing need as against the increasing desire to protect amenities. It is a question whether, for example, impounding reservoirs is the right way to tackle the need. There may be another way to tackle the matter rather than by a patchwork of reservoirs all over the country.
I hope that I have not broken tradition too much on the Front Bench by not sitting on the fence on a Private Bill, but this raises such important national problems that we should clearly say to the Government that it is urgent that the water boards, the public in general and Parliament should be allowed to consider this matter fully on a national basis.

9.12 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell): As the House will know, although the Minister puts in a memorandum and gives advice on Bills, the Government do not take sides on a


Private Bill. My purpose is not to argue the merits of the Bill, though I shall have something to say about the points which have been raised on both sides. I suggest that the case for the Bill, whatever is to be said against it, is entirely dependent on local considerations and upon local need. In my judgment much of the case against the Bill is based on the same local considerations.

Mr. Graham Page: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell: Yes, I believe that to be so. Hon. Members may disagree if they wish to do so. Furthermore, I believe it is a good thing that the House has these debates on merits when the matter is not subject to a Whip or anything of that sort so that one hopes the merits can transcend any other consideration. So far as I can judge, most of the arguments against have been developed on local considerations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) may be absolutely right, but I believe that the time-honoured way in Parliament of sending Private Bills upstairs so that the promoters and objectors can give their evidence and cross-examine each other is the best method of resolving these matters. Having sat here trying to be reasonably neutral—

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: It is not a neutral point.

Mr. Howell: With respect, it is. I think that I can claim to have brought at least as great a degree of objectivity into my consideration of this matter as has my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson).
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby may be absolutely right when he refers to the natural beauty of this area, but hon. Members who have never had the privilege of visiting this valley are bound to find it difficult to form a judgment about that. The Select Committee of another place gave a great deal of time to the subject, visited the area and reached a conclusion. It may have reached the wrong conclusion, but, at any rate, it considered the merits as well as it was able to do, examined and cross-examined witnesses and looked at the area for itself.
Delightful though it might be, I cannot imagine the 620 of us adjourning our proceedings while we visit my right hon. Friend's constituency. I am sure that we would get a magnificent welcome, but since that course is hardly practicable, the normal procedure is to send a Measure of this kind upstairs so that a small Committee of hon. Members may go into the matter thoroughly on our behalf.

Mr. Angus Maude: The Minister knows that I am as impartial in this as he is, since we are both West Midlands hon. Members with no constituency interests whatever. Would he address himself to a point which concerns a great many hon. Members on both sides; if we give one Second Reading after another to piecemeal Bills of this kind, we will never get the Government or water authorities to address themselves seriously to long-term solutions like barrages and grids?

Mr. Howell: I thought that I had made it clear that I would be coming to that.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Mr. Peter M. Jackson rose—

Mr. Howell: I wish to be brief. When I have completed my remarks my hon. Friend may be able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
I share the views of many hon. Members about our procedures, but it is not true to say that all proposals of this type must come here. The normal procedure in respect of these matters is for the Minister to make an order under the 1945 Act on the application of a water undertaking, and objections are heard at the appropriate inquiry.
It is rare nowadays for the House to have the opportunity to discuss a Bill of this kind. Those who believe that there is a strong point of principle involved in an issue like this will no doubt welcome the opportunity that we have had today. The normal procedure is not to have debates like this in the House but for the Minister to proceed by way of an order under the 1945 Act.
This brings me to the question why the Bill is before us, if this is not the normal procedure, and there are reasons for this. I do not put the first forward as being a major reason, but we in the Ministry believe that since the predecessor of the Calderdale Water Authority, Halifax


County Council, had its Bill rejected, we would not wish to be accused of being in contempt of Parliament by not proceeding in this way.
I do not place too much reliance on that first reason because the local authority had no alternative but to come here—[Interruption.]—the logic of my speech is, I hope, impeccable—since under the Acquisition of Land (Authori-sation Procedure) Act, 1946, an authority proposing to compulsorily purchase what is called "inalienable land" must come to Parliament to do so. The National Trust has declared part of this land to be such land, and therefore this special parliamentary procedure is invoked. I will return later to the question of the National Trust, because it is of some importance.
There seem to be three main arguments on the merits of the case which should receive our attention. The first is the need for water. It has not been seriously challenged that our modern society will require increasing quantities of water, although it has been suggested that our water is too cheap. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite echoing that sentiment. I would rather put it the other way that, by and large, we in this country are extremely fortunate to have such large quantities of good, wholesome water available at such economic prices. I pay tribute for this to the water industry and local authorities.
Since constituency speeches seem to be the order of the day, I may be permitted to point out that Birmingham was well to the fore in this matter, and that municipalisation began with the Birmingham Water Undertaking. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby was addressing us I thought that he was a Welsh Nationalist in disguise.

Mr. Maude: What about Welsh water?

Mr. Howell: I agree that we have flooded Welsh valleys.
Whenever a reservoir is built one is bound to upset somebody's amenity. A reservoir cannot be constructed without the amenity aspect coming into it. One must, therefore, make a judgment on the matter. As long as we are building reservoirs we are bound to be interfering with somebody's amenity somewhere.
Some parts of the countryside may seem less spectacular than other parts, but my short experience at this Ministry has taught me that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Parts of the country in which my right hon. Friend and others would think it right to build reservoirs would be just as jealously defended as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby has defended his area. Therefore, we need a great deal more water, and it has to be found by some means, somewhere.
Then there is the question of amenity, and paragraph 8 of the Report of the Minister on the Bill deals with it. Again, I am not competent to know, since the site of this proposal is further up the valley than that of the original proposal, exactly where one should make one's judgment. However, if the decision has to be made, it is better made by a Select Committee which has had the opportunity to consider all the pros and cons than by 600 Members of this House.
At this point, perhaps I might say a word or two about inalienable National Trust land to which the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) drew our attention. This is a piece of information which was made available in another place and subjected to examination and cross-examination. However, to get the facts in the right perspective, I think that it should be mentioned again. Although it is a very serious matter to set aside the National Trust's designation of land as being "inalienable", it is true that, in 1951, before the National Trust so designated the land, it approached my Ministry and was told specifically that the land might be required for a reservoir in the future. Its decision to designate the land inalienable, therefore, was taken in the knowledge that the National Trust would not necessarily have our support in resisting any proposals to acquire the land compulsorily. I make no judgment about that designation, but it is a proper matter, in the circumstances, to be subjected to the normal processes of examination in a Committee upstairs.
A number of other points have been raised, and I come directly to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby. I am delighted to pay tribute to his passionate advocacy. It was a great joy to listen to my right hon. Friend whether we agree with him or not. He


has done an extremely good job on behalf of his constituents.
However, he did not quite get his facts right about the recreational use of reservoirs. If there is no sailing, fishing and walking—[Laughter.]—on the reservoirs in his constituency, it is a disgrace. As the Minister responsible for sport, I am anxious to see such recreational uses of our reservoirs, and I am delighted to see that there are proposals to put matters right. I want to pay tribute to the revolution that there has been in the last two years, particularly as the result of the close co-operation between British water authorities, the regional sports councils and my Ministry. Since we must have reservoirs, and since the greatest shortage in sporting facilities occurs in those sports involving large expanses of water, we are all delighted to see that our reservoirs are being opened up. Already, three of my right hon. Friend's reservoirs have facilities, one for fishing and bird watching— [Laughterl—though not the variety to which hon. Members are accustomed, obviously; another one for walking and sailing—[Laughter.]—I mean, walking in the surrounding areas, because we have not yet got to the stage of walking on the water; and the third one has been opened up to provide access to the public for picnicking, rock climbing and similar purposes, facilities for which did not exist in the area previously. So that, in my right hon. Friend's constituency, out of the 15 impounding reservoirs about which he is talking he is not accurate regarding three of them.
I am sorry to tell my right hon. Friend and the House that I understand, on the best possible advice, that the reason there is no fishing is because all the fish have died of disease.

Mr. Maude: That is because of what the Water Board puts in the water.

Mr. Howell: Not at all. That is an unfair comment. I have already said that there is sailing on some reservoirs, and there should be sailing on others, too.
I should like to refer, in passing, to the small point my right hon. Friend made about capital. He was very trenchant about laying a sewerage scheme in his constituency and he made some caustic comments about capital pro-

grammes. I suggest that my right hon. Friend has probably had more time than I dealing with capital programmes when he was a Minister responsible for many of these matters. He will know that it is difficult to reach a judgment whether, on the one hand, to proceed with a large water undertaking or, on the other hand, to give authority for certain sewerage schemes. But the one with which my right hon. Friend was concerned, which was properly held up in 1967, became the subject of further and better particulars, as lawyers would say, in, I think, November, 1969, and authority to proceed with it was given in December last year.

Mr. Houghton: Sanction was given after the agitation on this reservoir began.

Mr. Howell: It would be unfortunate if my right hon. Friend thought that the giving of permission or sanction for that scheme had anything to do with the agitation on the water undertaking. I am sure that he will accept my assurance that that is not so.
The major point was the whole question of water policy and future opportunities that will occur. My right hon. Friend mentioned reports from the Water Resources Board. There are two reports. The first is a report on water resources in the North as a whole. This was discussed in another place. I can give a late piece of information to the House about it. That report will be available within the next month. Therefore, if the Bill gets a Second Reading and goes to Committee, it could be available for consideration.
The second report is on the full feasibility of the Morecambe Bay barrage. That will not be ready so quickly, but it ought to be available by the end of this year.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) talked about policy. So did the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. The whole purpose of the Water Resources Act, which hon. Gentlement opposite put through Parliament in 1963—I remember being on the Committee and taking an active part—was to produce a national policy, to create the Water Resources Board, and to get it to do the surveying and the strategic study so that sensible decisions could be taken by Ministers and by Parliament in


order that the great water shortages that we have known could be put behind us once and for all. We could then make sensible assessments whether to proceed by means of impounding reservoirs, by taking more water out of rivers, by barrage schemes or by a combination of these things. The Water Resources Board has been working very well and rapidly doing the fundamental research work on which these sensible decisions and hence a national policy can be based.
The South-East England Survey report has been completed. The survey of the situation in the North has been completed, and is due to be issued very shortly. The Board is now in the midst of preparing a similar report in respect of Wales and the Midlands. I am told that it hopes to be able to publish this report during 1971. Thus, in 12 months' time, we should have three major surveys on which it should be possible to determine the issues which we all agree are important. We should be able to decide which is the most intelligent way to proceed, and what our strategy should be for the country as a whole.
I do not think that there is much more that I want to say on the general question of water.

Mr. Turton: Will the Minister comment on the possibility of the Wash Barrage scheme, which is what the special report of a House of Commons Committee suggested the Minister should look into?

Mr. Howell: I am speaking off the cuff, but I think that that will be part of the planning and policy-making of the board. That will be part of its report to us.
The Government have obligations, but the point that I am making is that by mid—1971 we should have authoritative views on all these matters. It will be possible for us to add them up, to look at the country as a whole, and then to determine our priorities and what our procedures ought to be.
We are left to consider the Bill against the background of those facts, and I return to the point that I made at the beginning. The Bill received a serious, detailed, and lengthy investigation in another place. The Committee dealing with this Measure was able to visit the

site. I do not wish to take issue, one way or the other, with all the arguments which have been advanced. I should find it difficult to do so, and my advice to the House is that the Bill ought to receive a Second Reading, not because we are asking the House to determine in favour of the principle of the Bill, but because if you do not give the Bill a Second Reading you prevent all the issues receiving a detailed investigation. It must flow from rejecting the Bill that you are preventing a full investigation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not bring Mr. Speaker into it.

Mr. Howell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I am associating you too directly with the supply and consumption of water. I should not want to do that.
The House ought to allow a Committee upstairs to examine the details involved and to come to a conclusion on the merits of the case after hearing the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. That is my advice to the House.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington: In spite of what the Minister said, I think that one clear message has come through tonight, and that is that we need to review our procedures. In my innocence, I think that the best way of procuring such a review is to refuse to give the Bill a Second Reading.
I reinforce my assertion that there is a real need for a review of our procedures by reminding the House that the real sufferer here has been the Hepton Rural District Council, because it is a strange circumstance that time and again a small local authority such as this has to fight the giants, and has to find the money to do so. It is all very well for the Minister cavalierly to say that the whole matter can be reviewed by a Committee of the House. Who will pay? The money is running out. These unfortunate objectors, who fought this scheme in the 'thirties and again in the late 'forties and are having to fight it again now are expected once again to find the money to fight the giants.
We all know that this happens in other fields. I know from my experience in the law that sometimes a war of attrition is fought. Someone applies for a licence for a public house, objectors object and


brief counsel. The applicant comes back the next year and the next year and the next. A man can make a planning application to build a caravan site in a beautiful valley. A great deal of money is expended to fight the application. He comes back two years later and makes the same application.
It is not good enough for the Ministry to say that this is a procedure which works and allows these matters to be ventilated. It is all very well for the water boards: they have the resources to brief expensive counsel and can put the cost on the rates—but the people who want to object to this do not have the same opportunity.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my hon. Friend realise that, when we fought the proposed reservoir in Rutland, the Bill went through this House and Committee and, when it reached the Lords, we in Rutland could not afford to fight it in Committee there because of the cost which was to be imposed on us on top of the cost which we had faced in the Commons? I asked the Government whether they would help with the costs, and they refused.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he has reinforced my point. I will not labour it, because it has been made well by various speakers. Nor will I labour the arguments so well advanced by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
I have the greatest sympathy with those hon. Members opposite who believe that it is necessary to have this scheme so as to provide for the water needs of their areas. I have the greatest respect for people with those views, although some hon. Members opposite—in particular, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas)—did not attach sufficient weight to the most cogent argument of the right hon. Member for Sowerby, that the experts have been so wrong before that we should be very suspicious of the statistics which they have produced in support of the present proposal.
I respect those who say, as they are entitled to say, "We are convinced on the arguments that it is necessary to have this scheme. We recognise that it will cause damage to the countryside and

amenities, but, unfortunately, there is no escaping the dilemma". I understand that argument. I will not, however, put up with the argument, which has been advanced once or twice, that there will be no damage to the amenities at all. That is an argument which I am simply not prepared to accept.
Of course, this scheme will damage the beauty of the area and detract from the enjoyment of those who go there in large numbers. First, it is misleading to talk about the reservoir being considerably upstream of Hardcastle Crags. Anyone who knows the area knows that, colloquially at any rate, the whole valley is referred to as "Hardcastle Crags".
Second, it will not be that far upstream. I checked today and the dam will be only three-quarters of a mile upstream from the two crags themselves and only 400 yards further upstream than the dam would have been if the 1949 scheme had gone forward.
Third, it is very difficult to see how it can be said that amenities will not be affected, when the construction of this dam will inevitably mean blocking up many walks and footpaths and, of course, the most precious path of all, that which actually runs down the wooded part of the valley, where the water will be.
Fourth, not too much attention should be paid to this fine talk of sailing on the reservoirs and other recreational pastimes. The right hon. Member for Sowerby has already said that this is a very late repentance, in view of the other reservoirs belonging to this water board. No such facilities have been afforded to those who use this area and we all know, to give another example, from our own experience with the Manchester Corporation, that, for years and years, we were told that it was impossible to allow people to use these lakes because they were reservoirs. Then the pressure was put on and eventually Manchester conceded that, with a little effort, they could be made available to the public
This deathbed repentance is extraordinary. After years of denying to the public the right to go on the reservoirs it is asserted that, on the new reservoir. one will be able to sail.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend may not be aware, or perhaps he is aware, that


on some reservoirs where, as a concession, sailing has been allowed, all that has happened—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would help the Official Reporters if the hon. Member addressed the Chair.

Mr. Maude: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
My hon. Friend may not be aware that on some reservoirs where sailing has been permitted as a concession there is a sailing club with a limited membership and the facilities are surrounded by barbed wire and notices saying, "No admission to the public."

Mr. Waddington: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That reinforces the point I am making.
Of course, if this project is to be it has to be. I would not be so foolish as to pretend that if all these towns were to be denuded of water we should oppose the scheme, but as the right hon. Member for Sowerby said, the experts have been wrong so often in the past. Scaring estimates of the growth of demand have been made about the years to come. Similar scaring estimates were made in 1949 and all those estimates proved hopelessly wrong. We are dealing with an area where in recent years there has been appalling population and a fall in industrial activity. One would have expected that there would have tended to be a decline in demand for water rather than the reverse.
The point has been forcibly made that the board's case does not rest on any water shortage in the area actually supplied by the board, but on the fact that it has to supply other boards. Is that not an argument not in favour of this Bill, but for a far-reaching inquiry into how the needs could be met? I hope that hon. Members will vote against a Second Reading of the Bill, first, to ensure that our present procedures are reexamined and, secondly, to ensure that we have the far-reaching inquiry which is demanded into the water resources of the country.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Colin Jackson: I hope that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) will forgive me if I do not Follow all the detailed points he has made. It seemed an extraordinary sug-

gestion that because boating was not allowed on reservoirs before, it is reprehensible that it should be allowed now.

Mr. Waddington: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Jackson: No.
I had great pleasure in listening to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). It was a tour de force in every possible sense of that phrase. It sometimes wandered a little from the subject. There was an interesting dissertation on the wasteful use of toilets and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not reflecting on my colleague in the Chair at that time.

Mr. Jackson: There was also a reference to washing cars on Sundays.
I hope that my remarks may be rather more relevant to this topic. I should like to go once more over the question of the effect of this dam on amenities. I have made the journey mentioned by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. There is a sharp division in the valley between the wooded area and the open area. If the photograph that has been distributed to all hon. Members—that must have been an expensive matter; I would like to know who bore the cost of the venture—is turned 180 degrees, it gives a most effective example of how there is an abrupt end of the wooded part of the valley and the beginning of the open land.
The dam when constructed will affect only 10 acres of wooded district, the rest being entirely open land. In my conception this would be one of the most interesting, useful and beautiful areas of a combination of woods and water that it would be possible to conceive. One follows up the wooded part of the valley. Then there is the dramatic duty of the Hardcastle Crags. There is the carefully landscaped side of the dam. Then there is a possibility of walking on both sides of the reservoir or of boating. I cannot conceive of any more attractive proposition than this. I do not believe that the amenity value will be affected by the construction.
My right hon. Friend referred to the question of mills being closed. There was some suggestion that the population will be decreasing. In my constituency


quite the contrary is true. The M62 will be moving through there and the demands it will make on the water supply alone will be considerable. Brighouse looks forward to the construction of the reservoir.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) referred to the National Trust. There is no doubt that the Trust is out in force tonight. The Trust and the other interests with which my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) is concerned, and which are not directly related to supporting the Government—[HON. MEMBERS; "Oh"]—that was an unfair remark—are out in force. I have sympathy with them.
Of the 436 acres which will be involved in the construction of the reservoir, only 31 acres are National Trust territory which will be retained indefinitely. In talking about the reservoir we are talking about only one-tenth of the total territory being National Trust territory.

Mr. John Smith: Those figures conflict with the figures given by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). Is it possible that both hon. Members are wrong? Surely 90 of the 370 acres will be acquired compulsorily from the National Trust.

Mr. Jackson: Four hundred and thirty-six acres will be involved; 89 acres will be acquired from the National Trust to begin with, but 58 will be handed back on the completion of the work, meaning that 31 acres will be retained.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said that the debate had not given proper consideration to alternative schemes for the construction of a reservoir. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby significantly omitted any reference to the question of an alternative reservoir. The only alternative reservoir which found favour or which received any consideration in the other place when the Select Committee was studying this subject was the Colden Valley.
Except for my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), no one has referred to the Colden Valley tonight. The Colden Valley reservoir would involve six farms and very valuable agricultural land. The landscaping of the reservoir would be of such a variety that

it would be clearly visible in many directions. It would involve a reservoir in a part of the countryside hitherto not affected. Clearly that alternative scheme for a reservoir did not commend itself to the other place or its Committee, and neither should it commend itself here.
It is interesting to note where the support and the opposition have come from in the debate. It is perfectly understandable that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby, who is a keen and devoted constituency man, should, if he so wishes, oppose the reservoir. But let us consider the hon. Members adjacent to his constituency and see what they want. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax wants it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Walter Harrison) wants it. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) wants it. Brighouse and Spenborough needs the reservoir. In this area, 550,000 people need the reservoir.
But where are the opponents? They come from Bodmin and other parts of Britain, not from the area concerned. En dealing with such a matter, it is important that the local voice should be heard, not just the sort of "buttercup and daisies' variety—people who may have some kind of aesthetic enjoyment in looking at bits of moorland in the distance. Our people in this area need this water. Nobody has been able to convince the House tonight that there will not be a deficiency.
We might, if we followed the ideas of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby, have a kind of autonomy in all water supplies: no constituency should send any water to any other constituency, and neither should any other goods so pass. In that case Sowerby Bridge would be filled up with water. It would be waterlogged. There is a dire need to exploit my right hon. Friend's water. He has ready-made customers around him, busy industrial areas wanting to help the export drive, areas with a new vitality in their whole manufacturing processes.
We are asked tonight to be held up by the National Trust, held up by people who have nothing to do with the area. I urge that we let the Bill go to Committee; let it be discussed there in detail. Let the vast majority of the people of the area have their way and have their dam.

Quesion put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 71.

Division No. 56.
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Judd, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Binns, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Broughton, Sir Alfred
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tinn, James


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mawby, Ray
Varley, Eric G.


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley


Golding, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Harnling, William
Neal, Harold



Harper, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Maiiey, Brian
Dr. Shirley Summerskill and


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Mr. Colin Jackson.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pavitt, Laurence


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hawkins, Paul
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bessell, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Biggs-Davison, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ridley, Hn Nicholas


Blenkinsop, Arthun
Hooley, Frank
Russell, Sir Ronald


Body, Richard
Horner, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Booth, Albert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Brewis, John
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Smith, Dudley (W'wlck &amp; L'mington)


Bryan, Paul
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Stodart, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Jopling, Michael
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Clegg, Walter
Kimball, Marcus
Tilney, John


Crouch, David
Lambton, Viscount
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.




van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lawler, Wallace
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ward, Dame Irene


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Macdonald, A. H.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Dean, Paul
Maude, Angus
Wiggin, A. W.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman
Worsley, Marcus


Driherg, Tom
Monro, Hector



Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fortescue, Tim
Newens, Stan
Dr. Hugh Grey and


Goodhew, Victor
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. David Waddington.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St, Edmunds)
O'Halloran, Michael

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES)

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Determination of Claims and Questions) Amendment Regulations 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 1749), dated 8th December 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th December, be annulled.
We have just had what I am sure will be looked upon as a glorious victory for democracy in this country.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a previous debate.

Mr. Fortescue: I believe that this debate will show that our Statutory Instrument procedure should be improved in the same way perhaps as other machinery could be improved.
These regulations, which appear innocent in themselves, were made about a month ago and seek to amend the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Determination of Claims and Questions) (No. 2) Regulations 1967. Those regulations sought to consolidate all the provisions in this matter, and no more than that and they were approved without objection by the House.
Now, scarcely two years later, the Government are bringing forward further regulations amending one or more of the paragraphs of the original regulations and are thereby depriving the citizen of an important right granted to him a long time ago. The Government are bringing in these regulations without a word of explanation why it is necessary to deprive the citizen of this right. The Explanatory Note to the Statutory Instrument simply states as a fact that these regulations are to be brought in. Therefore, any Opposition worth their salt are bound to move a Prayer against the regulations to find out the Government's motives.
I will briefly go through the facts, which are a little complicated. The original regulations provided in paragraph 14(1) that an application for leave to appeal on a point of law to the Commissioner of National Insurance from a decision of a medical appeal tribunal on an industrial injuries matter must first be

made to a medical appeal tribunal. Then if the medical appeal tribunal refused leave to appeal, the appellant could appeal direct to the Commissioner. So far so good.
Paragraph 17(1) of the original regulations provided that if this appeal were made to the Commissioner, a request for a hearing must be granted by him. The one proviso was that in the case of an application in writing for leave to appeal made to the medical appeal tribunal, if the tribunal were satisfied that leave could be given the matter could be determined without a hearing; but if it decided to determine the matter without a hearing, leave to appeal from that decision of the tribunal still lay to the Commissioner. In those circumstances, the Commissioner was bound to grant a hearing.
This was the law before the new regulations were introduced. But the new regulations provide that in such circumstances the Commissioner, on considering the facts, can proceed to determine any question of law as though it were a question of law arising on appeal and can determine it without a hearing, simply on his own decision. He can write back to the appellant and say, "I do not think your case warrants a hearing from me. I choose to determine your case without a hearing, and here is my decision".
It is quite clear that for some reason which we do not know at the moment the Government have chosen to deprive a citizen of this right to a hearing which, under the original regulations, he was guaranteed. The Commissioner of National Insurance is a very eminent person appointed under the National Insurance Act, 1966, by a Minister. He is in no way a democratic official, he is a man of great eminence. His judgment can be accepted as being wise and impartial. Now we are told that somehow in the two years since the original regulations were made it is necessary to give the power to refuse a hearing to a citizen who appeals, although two years ago the Commissioner was bound to hear that citizen.
These are the facts of the case. Further on in the new regulations, in paragraph 2(2) another Amendment is made, which I do not wish to question because it is perfectly acceptable. By this the Commissioner is given this discretion but is


inhibited from exercising it because he cannot use it:
…unless the consent of the Secretary of State for Social Services and the claimant or the association has been given.
This would seem to be a perfectly proper protection for the citizen. If the Commissioner wants to refuse a citizen a hearing he has to get the consent of the Secretary of State, which may not be very important, but he has also to get the consent of a citizen who is aggrieved. If that citizen says:
All right, I am quite happy to waive my rights to a hearing
then the Commissioner can give his decision without a hearing. No one would want to waste the time of the Commissioner on an unnecessary hearing.
In paragraph 2(1) of the regulations that right is not given. The Commissioner can without consulting the citizen say:
I have got your appeal, I turn it down, and I will not listen to you in person.
The point of this Prayer is to know why, in this very short period of two years, a right which was granted to the citizen in the middle of consolidating Regulations, some of which had been in force for a long time—a right which was not in dispute in 1967—is to be suddenly withdrawn by the Government through the introduction of these special regulations.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: The hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Mr. Fortescue) has performed a service to the House by requesting that these regulations be debated. My union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, Las for some time been in correspondence with the Ministry about these regulations and there are a number of questions that ought to be asked before they come into effect. Although the House is very thinly attended, after Private Business, we must realise that for an individual who has been injured at work these regulations are a very vital piece of legislation. His whole life is affected.
The effects of these regulations can be far more important than a criminal or civil case. They can affect the sort of benefit that he will receive for the rest of

his life. It is a well-established principle of law that justice must not only be done, but it must manifestly be seen to be done. My concern about the decision that a Commissioner can make a decision in the absence of the appellant, or his representatives, is that the appellant may feel that justice has not been seen to he done, since neither he nor his trade union adviser nor, under the terms of the regulations, his legal representative was present.
It is a very great power to give to a Commissioner when it is something that will affect the whole future life and income of an individual injured in the course of employment. My hon. Friend must give a very lucid explanation to the House of why the Ministry and the Government seek this power to make a decision in the absence of an appellant, his trade union and his legal adviser. There have been a number of appeals to the Commissioner and I will admit that sometimes they are not really on points of law, but because the man is aggrieved as a result of a decision of the medical appeals tribunal. There is some disquiet in many circles about how medical appeals tribunals reach their decisions. It is not the concern of this House whether that is right or wrong, but it is the concern of this House that an individual who feels aggrieved by a decision should have the right to go before another body, to be represented before it and to have his side of the case heard. That right, as the hon. Gentleman has told us, is being or could be taken away from him by virtue of these regulations.
The regulations are not only restricted to a decision on a point of law from the appeal of a decision of a medical tribunal. Even on that, I would dispute whether the Government have a right on a point of law to take that right away from an appellant. It goes further in saying, "or such an appeal". So it is not only the point of law on which the Commission can decide that this is not a case where there should be an oral hearing. It is also on the appeal itself that he can decide that there should not be an oral hearing. This would seem to me to be a case where the man who is injured at work, whose whole life and future earning prospects are affected, could very well feel aggrieved, and deeply aggrieved, that neither he nor his representatives could appear before


the Commissioner so that he could hear justice being done in his case.
It is no use to a man to get a letter from the Commissioner saying, "We have decided so-and-so" if he has not appeared before the Commissioner. That runs counter to the whole idea of justice in this country, and I hope the House realises that, in cases such as medical appeals and appeals to the Commissioners, this is not just some branch of administrative law but that people's lives and livelihoods and incomes and future are being affected by what the Commissioner may or may not decide. This is important. It is not some minor administrative branch of the law. If a man is injured at work, he may never work again or he might have to take a job where he will never earn the same sort of money again. It is not his fault. He has been injured, possibly by the fault of the employer, possibly not. This is a very important consideration for the man and his family.
The other point of the regulations I would like clarification of is the second part, which was not referred to by the hon. Gentleman. This enables the Commissioner
…to take into account certain medical advice or evidence without disclosing it to claimants if it is not in the claimants' interests to disclose it.
At first sight, it seems an eminently sensible suggestion that, if a man is suffering from a disease or industrial injury whereby he might die in the very near future, it would not be in his interest to tell him so because that might seriously affect the short remainder of his life. I am sure that it is the Government's wish, lying behind this provision, that the man is not prejudiced in that way, that he is not seriously upset for the rest of his life.
But who decides? The Commissioner. But usually the Commissioner is a lawyer. He is not a doctor, and where one decides in a case, which is really being decided on medical evidence and on the prospects of the future life and enjoyment of life of the claimant, not to disclose something to him than materially affects his case, what criteria are adopted by the Commissioner before such information is given to the claimant or to his trade union advisers or legal advisers?
Some claimants do appear in person but these regulations are also going to face trade union and legal representatives appearing before the Commissioner. In the circumstances, they are fully entitled to this information so that they may decide whether or not to tell the claimant. I do not like the idea of a bureaucrat deciding what it is right to tell a claimant about his future life.
If a solicitor, legal adviser or trade union officer decides that it is a case where there should be an appearance before the Commissioner, the Commissioner should decide to have an oral hearing. The Government should realise that if a legal adviser decides to take a case as far as the Commissioner, or if a trade union goes to great expense on behalf of one of its members to take that course, that step will not have been taken lightly. It must genuinely be felt that it is a case which should be heard orally before the Commissioner, in the presence of a trade union representative, a solicitor or the claimant himself.
The hon. Member for Garston was right to describe this as a matter affecting the liberty of the individual. It might be said that the citizen's rights are being prejudiced by this Instrument. I am pleased that we have had an opportunity of examining the matter. If this Instrument is designed for administrative convenience, then the Government are wrong. It is more important for the claimant to see that justice is done on his behalf. That should override any thoughts of administrative convenience.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: The comments of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) are to be welcomed, particularly as he was speaking on behalf of a trade union. I was surprised that more of his trade union colleagues were not present to support him. I can only suppose that they do not fully appreciate what the Government are doing tonight.
We are discussing a serious limitation on the citizen's liberty; on his right of appeal and on his right to go before the Commissioner, a right which was written into a Statutory Instrument approved by Parliament only two or three years ago.
Few hon. Members with "surgery" or legal experience will under-estimate the powerful feelings which people have when they have suffered industrial injuries. Frequently they do not feel that they are getting justice. Governments of every complexion have, over the years, decided to use tribunals, for we could not use courts to make all the necessary decisions. We must, therefore, jealously guard the right of appeal that should exist under the tribunal system.
As we take away these decisions from our courts of law and hand them over to tribunals, we should recognise that, in many ways, we put a restriction on people's rights and liberties. Naturally, tribunals are more restrictive than courts of law. The courts have rights of appeal built into them, and normally they cannot restrict the ladder of appeal which is open to the citizen. Tribunals are open to the interference of Governments year by year, who can change the ground rules on which they work. Here we find a classic example of the Government changing their mind after only three years, and a limitation is to be imposed on the rights of appeal of a man and his union.
I have referred already to the anguish with which many people receive tribunal decisions. That is not surprising when one thinks of how small the decisions of county courts and the High Court are compared with those being taken by tribunals. A man may go before a medical tribunal with, perhaps, £2 or £3 at stake. Capitalised, that may be a sum which would take him into the High Court scale. There may be £2,000 or £3,000 in capital at stake in deciding whether he should receive an extra £2 or £3 a week. His family's future comfort and his self-respect depend on the tribunal's decision and, because of the importance of such decisions, we ought to be careful before taking away the right of appeal.
It should be remembered, too, that we take away not only the citizen's right of appeal but the Minister's right to require the Commissioner to look at the matter again. Under Section 17, the Minister may make that request. A number of hon. Members have had the experience of writing to the Minister, finding him sympathetic, and being informed that he has referred the matter to the Commis-

sioner. Before, the Commissioner had to comply with such a request, whereas now he can refuse it.
I cannot think that hon. Members will regard this as a satisfactory state of affairs. If the Minister feels that such a request is appropriate, it cannot be right that the Commissioner should be able to turn it down, yet it appears from my reading of the regulations that that power is to go. By that loss, we lose our ability to help constituents who come to us. Previously, we could promise to ask the Minister whether he could help. Now, we cannot.
Before concluding my remarks, I want to put one or two questions to the hon. Gentleman. The first is to inquire what consultations there were with the unions before this step was taken. It is clear that there were objections by certain of them, but many others may not have realised what was happening. Did the Government say to the great industrial unions, "Our proposal is to take away this right of appeal. What have you to say about it?". I suspect that they did not. If they did, what replies did they receive from the unions? Was any union or any body involved in these industrial affairs prepared to agree that the Government were taking the right course?

Mr. Oakes: The Transport and General Workers' Union was not consulted, but it was aware of the Government's proposal, which it vigorously opposed.

Mr. Miscampbell: I am grateful for that intervention. That is what I would have expected from a union of that standing. It has good legal advice and excellent secretarial support. It would have noticed what was happening. But many unions will not have realised what was happening.
I should like to know whether the unions were consulted and what their attitudes were. If they were not consulted, were they alerted about what was happening so that they would have opportunities to make objections? They are the people who should have been asked. They will conduct these appeals, but they will find that they cannot go on.
We will all find it distressing to have to say to our constituents when they come to us, "I am very sorry, but the


Government have taken away your right of appeal. You cannot put your point of view as you would wish. I know that you think you have been done out of £2 or £3 a week, I know that you have a grievance, but there is nothing that I can do to help."
Quite frankly, this does not strike me as being British justice or a sensible way of going about things. I cannot believe that administrative convenience in any way warrants this interference with a right that people should have, albeit if we have to pay a little extra to give them that right.

10.37 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) for giving me the opportunity to explain the thinking behind this Statutory Instrument. I fully understand the reasons why this Address has been moved and the reasons which have kept here the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), among others, fo speak tonight. It is a good thing that Members of Parliament take the opportunity to scrutinise the activities of the Executive, even in minor matters like this. However, I hope that I shall be able to give some explanation and reassurance to all hon. Members who have spoken.
I understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West. He always keeps a close watch on the business of this House when the interests of the Transport and General Workers' Union might be affected, but, with its considerable expertise and experience in these matters, it really has nothing to fear.
First, I should like to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North about consultation, because that is clearly the beginning of the story. These regulations have been considered over a long period and passed by various bodies.
The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council agreed to these amending regulations. Four members on that Advisory Council represent employees' organisations or interests, four members represent employers' organisations or interests,

and, apart from the chairman, most of the rest of the members are medically qualified professional people. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about employee representation and awareness. I can tell him that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council considered these amendments and agreed to them, as did the Council on Tribunals after consideration.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the trade unions were aware of what was going on, and whether any of them complained. There is a standard procedure for this kind of situation. Under it, the relevant committee of the T.U.C. is made aware of Government thinking on this kind of thing, and it was as a result of the T.U.C.'s knowledge that the T.G.W.U., of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West is a member, first took the matter up with us. I hope that that meets the hon. Gentleman's point. He also asked which unions had objected, and I can tell him that objections have been received from the T.G.W.U.
As questions have been asked on each of the three sections of these regulations, I think that it will be necessary to go through them one by one, to explain the present position, to explain the reasons for changing the situation as it was before these regulations came into force on 5th January, and to consider what the changes mean.
The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1965, places on independent medical boards and medical appeal tribunals the responsibility for determining medical questions arising on claims for disablement benefit—for example, the degree at which any disablement resulting from the relevant loss of faculty arising from an industrial accident or prescribed disease should be assessed.
The decision of the medical appeal tribunal on these medical questions is final, but since 1959 there has been a right of appeal, subject to leave being given by a medical appeal tribunal or the Commissioner, on a point of law. Perhaps I might correct one error which has crept into the debate. The position which existed before 5th January did not come into effect in 1967, only two years ago, but has been operative since 1959, and was recommended by the Franks Committee as long ago as 1957.
I think that it would be useful at this stage to take up the points which have been raised about the disquiet and dissatisfaction of claimants when they find that they lose their case, or have no further right of appeal. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West that my experience as a constituency Member—and I think that this is the general experience of hon. Members—is that the disquiet arises not from difficulties about points of law, but generally from dissatisfaction at the degree of disability as assessed by a medical appeal tribunal. What we are discussing tonight has nothing to do with the medical assessment of a medical appeal tribunal. We are here dealing with appeals to the Commissioner on a point of law. The Commissioner has no jurisdiction on medical questions reserved for the medical adjudicating authorities. He can consider only whether the tribunal has erred on a point of law. The position is that if the Commissioner finds that the decision of the medical appeal tribunal is erroneous on a point of law, he cannot substitute a new decision. The case is referred to a medical appeal tribunal, usually differently constituted, for reconsideration and a fresh decision.
Under Section 42 of the Industrial Injuries Act, 1965, an appeal from a decision of a medical appeal tribunal may be made by the claimant, an association of employed persons of which the claimant was a member at the time of the relevant accident, or by the Secretary of State. Leave to appeal has first to be given by a medical appeal tribunal or the Commissioner.
The principal regulations, which are being amended here, provide for an application for leave to appeal normally to be made in the first instance to a medical appeal tribunal, either orally, at the hearing immediately after the decision, or in writing within three months of the tribunal's decision.
Hon, Gentlemen should notice that, even before these regulations were laid, the medical appeal tribunal had discretion whether or not to hold an oral hearing on the application, whereas the Commissioner had no such discretion. Therefore, there was a difference between the discretionary powers of the tribunal and those of the Commissioner. If the application is refused by the tribunal,

or is not made within the specified time, it may be made direct to the Commissioner. If the application is granted, either by the tribunal or the Commissioner, an appeal may be made to and considered by the Commissioner.
Before the amending regulations were made, the Commissioner had no discretion in the matter of an oral hearing on application for leave to appeal and on appeals from decisions of medical appeal tribunals and was bound to hold an oral hearing whenever this was requested. It is worth noting that this procedure is not followed elsewhere in the national insurance and social security system. In fact, it is completely at variance with the system which is usually followed on claims for benefit under the National Insurance Acts. Such claims are decided by independent statutory authorities, consisting, first of insurance officers, and then the local tribunal and on a further right of appeal to the Commissioner.
In dealing with appeals from the local tribunal, the Commissioner has complete discretion whether or not to hold an oral hearing. This applies to a very large number of cases. Regulation 2(1) of the Amendment Regulations gives the Commissioner a similar discretion whether or not to hold an oral hearing when considering an application for leave to appeal or an appeal from a decision of a medical appeal tribunal.
So, first, we are bringing this very small area into line with the general situation in the rest of the national insurance system. Hon. Gentlemen have asked why this is necessary—

Mr. Miscampbell: I should have mentioned that this was a very small area. Can the Minister tell us how many appeals will be affected by the regulations? He may not have the information immediately available, but if he has, I am sure that the House would be glad to know the scale of the problem.

Mr. O'Malley: I can help the hon. Gentleman. In 1968, the total number of appeals on national insurance, industrial injuries and family allowance matters decided by the Commissioner was 2,510. In 1968, 23 cases came from the medical appeal tribunals to the Commissioner where the tribunal had granted an application for leave to appeal. Of 288 later


applying to the Commissioner, out of a further total of 353 dealt with by the tribunal itself, an oral hearing was requested in 42 cases. These figures show that this constitutes a very small corner of the overall activities within the social security system, and that we are bringing it into line with that system.

Mr. Oakes: If it is so insignificant and uncostly, why not continue with it so that the individual can feel that he has had justice? This will not cost the Government and the country a large sum?

Mr. Fortescue: It is the same point. put somewhat differently. If this procedure, which is different from any other procedure throughout the national insurance system was specifically written into the system in 1957 and specifically included in the consolidating regulations in 1967, why suddenly after about two years is it necessary to bring it into line?

Mr. O'Malley: It has been operating for a number of years. In the House lawyers are always arguing on points of principle, which I often do not understand. I should have thought that as a lawyer my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West would jump for the principle, if there was a principle involved. The general point involved in the principle, and which has been the cause of no complaint in recent years, is the one where the Commissioner has this discretion.

Dame Irene Ward: How many of the appeals were successful in the cases where permission to appeal was granted by the medical appeal tribunal?

Mr. O'Malley: I cannot tell the hon. Lady that without notice. I will certainly write to her and tell her.

Dame Irene Ward: Is it not extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should use the phrase "small area" if he does not know all the facts? I cannot see how he can define it as a small area in that case. In any event, a small area affecting only one person is very important. I am surprised that he does not know how many of the appeals were successful.

Mr. O'Malley: This is not the nub of of the argument. The nub of the argument is whether the Commissioner should have this discretion. The figures which

are relevant are those of the number of people who ask for an oral hearing out of the total number of people who seek leave to appeal or who eventually appeal.
The House is right to ask: even if it is a question of general principle and the House is not satisfied that it is sufficient that this change is being made to bring this system into line with the general practice, what other grounds are there for the Government's decision to put forward these regulations? What other grounds are there, moreover, for the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to agree to this? What other grounds are there which caused the Council on Tribunals to change its mind, as did the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council?
The views of the Commissioners who are running the system must be taken note of. I will adduce other facts in a few minutes. The Commissioners are people with considerable legal experience who do an expert job, as I think the House will unanimously agree, efficiently and well.
It is clear from a number of the reports of the Commissioners that they are extremely dissatisfied with the existing situation in this small area where the automatic right to an oral hearing exists. For example, one Commissioner wrote—there are a number of complaints of this kind—saying this:
…I think it right to draw attention pointedly to the extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs in cases of this type which not infrequently come before the Commissioner…As the Commissioner has pointed out on many occasions, the situation seems most unsatisfactory. The hearing before me was a complete waste of public time and money. It gave no satisfaction to the claimant who having been told that he could make a second application to the Commissioner thought that it would be of some use to him.
He then goes on to a point which bears on the last point which my hon. Friend made:
It may be that the waste of money resulting from such hearings does not amount to more than a few thousand pounds yearly"—
for what it is worth, I give that point—
At a time when all concerned with National Insurance work are under heavy pressure, it seems unfortunate that their time should be occupied by hearings which can produce no possible advantage to anyone. I hope that this decision will be brought to the attention of those responsible for the contents of the regulations".


Obviously, any Government must take note of and consider suggestions and complaints made by the Commissioners. As I have said, we have found no dissatisfaction whatever with the workings of the system at large. Moreover, the Commissioners having expressed that sort of view, we also within the Department have expertise and knowledge of the system. I should add that the Departments' legal representatives appearing before the Commissioner on these applications for leave to appeal and appeals from decisions of medical appeal tribunals cannot recollect a single case in which an oral hearing has resulted in the disclosure of a point of law which was not evident from the documents.
Even when a claimant's application for leave to appeal discloses no point of law, it is normal practice for the Secretary of Slate's representative in the written submission to draw the Commissioner's attention to any possible prima facie point of law which seems to arise. Moreover, I understand that the Commissioner, when considering applications for leave to appeal, scrutinises the documents in detail to see whether there is any reasonable point which could be raised on the claimant's behalf.
I emphasise that the amendment does not take away from the claimant or his association in the slightest their right to have any application for leave or any appeal considered and determined by the Commissioner. The Amendment will avoid waste of public time and money, but, even more important, will avoid misunderstanding by and disappointment to claimants who in the past, no doubt, felt that, because the Commissioner had granted their request for an oral hearing of an application or an appeal, there was a chance that he would alter the assessment of disablement reached by the medical authorities, which, of course, he cannot do.
All hon. Members who have any length of experience, as all present in the Chamber tonight have, know what is the real trouble which concerns so many of our constituents in this unfortunate position when they come to us. They are not discussing points of law. The real trouble is that they are dissatisfield by the decision of the medical appeal tribunal, and that is not affected

here. As I have said, the right to appeal is not affected by the regulations. We are merely giving this discretionary power to the Commissioner, in whom the House must vest full trust in the expert job which he does.
I turn now to the other two parts of the regulations about which questions were asked. The second amendment deals with the Commissioner's powers to deal with any point of law arising at the same time as granting an application for leave to appeal. Before the amendment was introduced, the Commissioner had no power where he gave leave to appeal to go on to deal with a point of law arising on the application unless the application was considered at an oral hearing, when he could do so provided that all the parties concerned agreed. The amendment simply enables the Commissioner at the time he grants an application for leave to appeal, whether or not an oral hearing is held, to proceed forthwith to deal with the point of law arising, providing that all the parties concerned agree.
The kind of situation one envisages here is when the Commissioner looks at the papers and says, "Yes, a point of law is involved here." I agree that he still has to have a hearing, and, if requested, an oral hearing. But this proposal cuts through the period of delay in this settlement of appeals. Very often, claimants feel that this kind of case goes on far too long. This new procedure avoids the considerable and unnecessary "double handling" of cases and the delay in the settlement of appeals, which is undoubtedly to the advantage of claimants.
I turn now to the question of the disclosure of medical information. It is the case that disclosure is always made to the representatives of the person concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West, said that the Commissioner is a legal man and not a doctor. I hope he will bear that in mind that all this does is to formalise a position where the medical tribunal, two-thirds of whose membership is composed of medical men anyway, obviously uses its discretion, and the amendment merely gives the Commissioner the right to continue to exercise that discretion. I think it would be agreed that this is useful and helpful to the individual concerned.
The effect of annulment would be to continue to expend public money and time unnecessarily, because the right of appeal is not taken away; to continue to cause misunderstandings by and disappointments to claimants who, in fact, were not raising any point of law; to continue the delays in the settlement of cases, the time for dealing with which could well be shortened without detriment to any party; and finally, in relation to the non-disclosure of harmful medical information, to follow a wholly unnecessary and costly distressing procedure. In the light of the explanation I have given, I hope that hon. Members will not press the Motion but will agree to withdraw it

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Fortescue: The House will be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the courteous and patient way in which he has explained the action of the Government in seeking to make these amendments, but I, for one, do not find his explanation on the first and major point satisfactory and I do not feel able to withdraw the Motion.
The hon. Gentleman told us that the reason for this Amendment so soon after the opposite was enacted by the House is that the Commissioners, or the one Commissioner he quoted, think that it should be done. That is the only explanation we have heard. He has given no other fact which has changed since 1967, except that one Commissioner whom he quoted has given it as his opinion that the whole thing is a waste of time.

Mr. O'Malley: I quoted from one Commissioner but in fact a number of complaints from Commissioners have been made over the years on this point. I merely quoted a typical example.

Mr. Fortescue: Very well, the Commissioners have complained that the procedure is a waste of their time and the appellants' time. The Commissioners say that they are under heavy pressure and that these appeals are a waste of public time and money, although it is admitted that the amount of public money involved is very small. They also say that it would be administratively much more tidy if this Amendment were made. The Commissioner the hon. Gentleman quoted also said that such an appeal can be of no satisfaction to the claimant because

he does not really understand what it is all about. The claimant thinks he has a claim on medical grounds and in fact he has not, because the appeal we are talking about is simply on a point of law, so that when he has had a further hearing he is unsatisfied. On this ground, the Commissioners say that the Amendment should be made.
For the House of Commons, this is an unsatisfactory explanation. It is as if an appeal judge in the High Court said, "I think that the hearing of appeals is a waste of time because often the appellant is dissatisfied because he does not understand what it is all about, and it would be administratively more tidy to abolish the High Court and have no appeals. That may be a slightly exaggerated analogy, but it is the sort of argument being used—that, because the Commissioners say that the procedure is a waste of time, the right of the individual should be inhibited or reduced.
It is far more important to discover from the citizen whether he thinks it a waste of time instead of taking the Commissioner's view that it is. How does the Commissioner know that the claimant is not dissatisfied? The mere fact that he has had another hearing will make him more satisfied than he was, as we all know from our constituency experience. A man who feels that he has been to the top man and had his case heard, even if it has not resulted in the decision he wanted, feels that he has done everything possible.

Mr. O'Malley: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should not change this but extend the principle from this small area to the whole of National Insurance.

Mr. Fortescue: No, I am making the narrow point that in 1967 it was thought fit by this Government and this House to preserve this arrangement. Since then something has happened to persuade the Government that this ought not to be preserved. I have pressed the Under-Secretary to tell the House what this is, what has happened. The only thing he has said is that the Commissioners have complained. There is no other explanation. If he can give a further explanation I will gladly give way. I do not think that there is another explanation. It is simply that the Commissioners say it is a waste of time. If that is the


reason for reducing the rights of the citizen I cannot advise my hon. Friends to do anything but vote in favour of the Prayer.

Mr. O'Malley: The Department obviously keeps the situation under review. In that review, in the experience of the legal section of the Department, it has been found that there is no case that it could see for supposing that this would change the normal position at all. We have to take some kind of judgment on this.

Mr. Fortescue: This system was perpetuated in 1967. Why was this one exception to the whole arrangement of the national insurance system made in the 1967 regulations? What has happened since to make the Government change their mind? I do not think that the explanation given can be accepted by the House.

Question put and negatived.

EUSTON-STRANRAER BOAT TRAIN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Handing.]

11.8 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the threatened withdrawal by the Ministry of Transport of the grant for the Euston-Stranraer boat train. Many hon. Members know Stranraer as the Scottish terminal of the short sea crossing to Larne, whence there is a good railway service to the City of Belfast. Every year the great advantages of the short sea crossing are becoming more apparent to travellers with commercial interests seeking a comfortable and convenient route to Ireland.
Since 1960, two new ships. "The Caledonian Princess" and "The Antrim Princess", have been operating on the crossing. Business is increasing so rapidly that a third new ship is under construction and will be delivered early next year.
In 1969, 550,000 passengers used the crossing and the roll-on roll-off facilities attracted 25,000 commercial vehicles. The profit, which must now be approaching £1 million a year—and this figure must be kept in mind when considering

what follows—makes this the most profitable of all British Railways shipping services.
Local people on both sides of the North Channel who man the ships and contribute so much to the service are naturally extremely proud of its success, one element of which is the London train, which enables a businessman to leave his Belfast office at 5 p.m. and be in London by breakfast time the next morning. The train is also essential to the Post Office parcels service to Belfast, which carries on average 1,000 mailbags every night.
The service is well known and long established. Formerly, the train went on a direct route via Dumfries, but this line was closed in 1965. When the then Minister of Transport gave his consent to the closure, he made it a condition that the Euston-Stranraer train should continue to be run. In his letter of 17th July, 1964, to the Railways Board, the then Minister wrote:
I consider that an overnight service between London and Stranraer on schedules similar to the present ones and connecting with the morning and evening boats must continue. I have been assured by the Railways Board that such a service can be provided by an alternative route".
That passage in the Minister's letter was scheduled as an appendix, as it were, and the condition was in no way limited in time.
Since 1965, a train has run via Girvan and Ayr and has joined the main Glasgow line at Mauchline. The new route has meant hardship to travellers in Galloway, but has brought notable advantage to the people of Ayrshire, who now have a direct overnight sleeper service from Ayr to London. Apart from the local people, it has been a boon to transatlantic air passengers when fog at Heathrow has meant their airliners having to be diverted to Prestwick.
Imagine the consternation in South-West Scotland and Northern Ireland when the present Minister of Transport chose 18th December, the last day of the Session before Christmas, to announce in a Written Answer that the grant for the service was to be continued for only a further six months.
Equally sinister seemed the Minister's silence on the continuation of the grant for the Stranraer—Ayr line. True, in


relation to the train, the right hon. Gentleman said that future arrangements for providing the train were being examined, but without a railway line what could that mean but some form of express bus? People also commented on the lack of capital expenditure in recent years at Stranraer Harbour Station, where the waiting room and toilet facilities are sub-standard for the huge number of passengers who pass through it.
Since then I have been grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for to some extent allaying our anxieties about the Ayr—Stranraer line, though he will agree that should the London train be discontinued, the extra allocation that would have to be made in the grant for track and terminal expenses would put its longterm future in serious jeopardy.
In his letter to me, the Parliamentary Secretary raised further fears by suggesting that the condition on running the London train might be waived in the "changed circumstances of 1970". Nobody to whom I have spoken can imagine what these "changed circumstances" might be. I referred to the notable profit of the short sea route. Some of the extra traffic has, naturally, gone to the train. According to the Minister's announcement, six months' running of this train requires a subsidy of £83,000. It would be interesting if the Parliamentary Secretary could provide a breakdown of the accounting figures used in calculating his Ministry's grant.
I would be surprised if this train did not cover its movement costs. Indeed, my information is that it does so and that it makes a contribution to indirect costs. If the Parliamentary Secretary can confirm this, then does the £83,000 refer to track and signalling costs, terminal costs, administration and interest?
Assuming that the answer is in the affirmative, then this must refer to the use of the main line track from London to Ayr, and, as I mentioned, the line from Ayr to Stranraer. It must also refer to a proportion of the costs of Euston Station; and surely the point here must be that these sums would continue to be incurred even if there were no Stranraer train. It would be debited to other British Railway services. The suggestion that by not running this train the Government could

save, perhaps, £166,000 a year is, therefore, completely illusory.
The real point at issue, though, in this debate is the discontinuance of the train, and the threat contained in the Parliamentary Secretary's letter of 8th January to waive the condition that this train should continue to be run. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give a better explanation of what is in his Minister's mind than he has done heretofore. As I cannot speak again, I must tell him frankly that if the condition is waived, and the train is eventually taken off, it will be a shameful betrayal of the people who use the service both in Scotland and in Northern Ireland.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) on raising this subject. It has been discussed on a number of occasions in the House, and both he and I are familiar with the discussions with the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, which body came down with a quite definite verdict that the railways should be kept open, and it was decided that one railway should be kept open.
Now there is a threat to that railway service; in particular, to the night service from Euston to Stranraer, and thence to Belfast. This is a service which it is, perhaps, easy to say is being replaced by air transport, and is, therefore, no longer necessary, but if that is said I would put the Parliamentary Secretary right by saying that the service is of vital importance to Northern Ireland as well as to Galloway.
In the first instance, it is a very important tourist route to Northern Ireland, both from the South of England and from the North-East. The night train through Stranraer to meet the Larne boat provides a route by which a very considerable number of tourists reach Northern Ireland throughout the summer months. Even more important, though less dramatic, is the fact that the night train in the reverse direction allows those who produce vegetables and other perishable goods in Northern Ireland to put their goods on the London market early next morning.
When the question was asked at the transport users consultative committee meeting, "What happens to perishable goods if the railway does not continue


to run?" the Town Clerk of Lame gave the simple answer, "Those goods perish." I suggest that the continuation of the night service to meet the Larne—Stranraer boat is of vital importance to Northern Ireland.
I do not need to remind the Minister of the real difficulties in Northern Ireland for our tourist industry and other industries at present, and the real threat of increasing unemployment. I suggest that any Government which in circumstances such as the present take any action which is likely to damage the economy of Northern Ireland is hurting us when it hurts most. I suggest that this is the wrong moment too for such consideration as this.

11.17 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): Although my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray) usually deals with railways matters, he has asked me to apologise for his absence. He is, however, pleased that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) has raised this question, as it presents an opportunity to explain the reasoning behind my right hon. Friend's decision about the grant payable under section 39(1) of the 1968 Transport Act for the Euston-Stranraer boat-train service, and to remove misunderstandings about the other rail passenger service to Stranraer.
Incidentally, I want to say how pleased I am to be supported by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office. His presence is a clear indication of the interest of the Scottish Office and of its jealous guard of Scottish interests.
First of all I would like to clear up one important point; the examination of the Euston-Stranraer boat-train service is in no way a threat to the rail service between Glasgow, Ayr and Stranraer and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend has already given this assurance in writing. Two separate grant-aided services are involved—Glasgow to Ayr and Ayr to Stranraer. The Glasgow to Ayr service has just been given a grant for the three year maximum period permitted by statute, that is until the end of 1972. In December, 1968, the Ayr to Stranraer service was given a two year grant, covering the years 1969 to 1970. The

Railways Board will no doubt submit a new application for the Ayr to Stranraer service later this year, and for the Glasgow to Ayr service in 1972. Until these applications have been received and studied it is impossible to be definite, but at present we see no reason why fresh undertakings to pay grant should not be issued in both cases for a further period when the current undertakings expire. I repeat, therefore, that there is no threat at all to what is the more important of the two passenger services to Stranraer.
The Euston-Stranraer service consists of one overnight train from Euston to Stranraer on Sundays to Fridays inclusive and one from Stranraer to Euston on Mondays to Saturdays inclusive. The trains convey sleeping cars and connect with the steamer services to and from Lame in Northern Ireland. The rail service operates over the West Coast main line to Crewe and Carlisle and then diverges at Gretna Junction and follows the route via Dumfries to Mauchline where it branches westward to Ayr before proceeding in a southerly direction to Stranraer.
As part of his consent to the withdrawal of passenger services for the direct line between Dumfries and Stranraer in 1964, a previous Minister the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) imposed a condition requiring the Board to run
an overnight through train from London to Stranraer connecting into the early morning boat-train to Lame, and an overnight through train service from Stranraer to London connecting off the evening boat from Larne.
The Railways Board have been operating the service via Carlisle, Mauchline and Ayr since 14th June, 1965.
Hon. Members will recall that the Government set up a Joint Steering Group in 1966 to study, amongst other things, a system under which the Railways Board could be relieved of the burden then placed on its accounts by continuing to run unremunerative but socially necessary passenger services. As a result of the Group's recommendations provision was made in the Transport Act, 1968, for grants to be made to the Railways Board for unremunerative railway passenger services meeting a social or economic need. These grants became payable from 1st January, 1969, when general deficit financing arrangements ended.
Towards the end of December, 1968, the Railways Board submitted an application for grant for the Euston-Stranraer boat trains and in view of the condition which I have just quoted, imposed when the Dumfries-Stranraer service was withdrawn, an undertaking to pay grant was given for one year expiring on 31st December, 1969. The amount of grant payable in that year was £178,000. The £200,000 figure originally quoted was subsequently reduced by adjustments in respect of grant for surplus track and signalling facilities under Section 40 of the Transport Act, 1968, and by a reduction in the interest elements following the write down of the Board's capital debt.
The grant calculations are based on the recommendations of the Joint Steering Group which were accepted by the Government, and take account of longterm costs that the Railways Board incur in respect of each service and the earnings directed related to it, with depreciation charges based on replacement costs.
For grant purposes, where more than one service makes use of a section of route or station, the method of allocating the costs of these facilities is that which was already used by the Railways Board for passenger profitability studies. Adoption of this method was recommended by the Joint Steering Group. Owing to the considerable distance over which this service operates-454 miles —a substantial part of its costs are in respect of allocations for track and signalling facilities and to a lesser extent stations shared with other services, both passenger and freight. For example, only £2,800 of the total cost of Euston Station is charged to this service—less than half of 1 per cent. of the total. The total annual costs, for track, signalling and stations shared with other services, amount to £7,363,000, and the allocation to this service is £140,000, or 1·9 per cent. On the West Coast main line—that is the 311 miles from Euston to Gretna Junction—the smallness of the share borne by this service is even more pronounced. The total track, signalling and station costs are £6,407,000 but only £73,000 or 1·1 per cent. is allocated to the boat trains. The section of line where the service bears a significant allocation of the costs is the 59 miles from Ayr to Stranraer, over which there

are only five other passenger trains in each direction daily. The total costs here are £352,000, of which the share allocated to the Euston-Stranraer service is £44,000, or 12·5 per cent.
The hon. Member for Galloway asked for the breakdown of the grant. The figures are as follows: movement costs, £229,000; terminal costs, £11,000; net track and signalling costs, £114,000; interest and administration, £64,000; total costs, £418,000; earnings, £253,000; leaving a grant of £165,000.

Mr. Brewis: Does this mean that every time a train runs it is debited with something in the nature of £50 in interest and £75 for administration? This seems quite absurd.

Mr. Brown: I have got quite a bit to say yet, and I do not want to start doing mental calculations.
No one is saying that withdrawal of this service will result in real savings worth £165,000, which is what the hon. Gentleman intimated. All grant-aided services bear a share of costs which are joint with other services, and we are well aware that some part at least of these joint costs would be transferred to other services. Withdrawal of the boat-train would, as the hon. Member says, mean that the Ayr to Stranraer passenger service would have to bear a further share of these costs, as of course would the freight trains over the same route. But these are all matters which we and the Railways Board would have in the front of our minds in considering whether or not the condition should be waived and, if it comes to a closure proposal, whether the service should be withdrawn. They do not, however, mean that we should not examine the present situation.
The hon. Member says that 550,000 passengers used the Stranraer-Larne ferry in 1969, but a minute proportion of these passengers used the Euston boat train. The average number arriving at or leaving Stranraer on the trains on winter weekdays is less than 30, and even in summer the average is only just over twice this figure. The number of passengers joining and alighting from this train at Stranraer has fallen by about half since 1963. This rail service now performs a very minor rôle in travel between Great Britain and Northern


Ireland. These are the changed circumstances to which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred in his letter to the hon. Member.

Mr. Brewis: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that earnings last year had increased as compared with the previous year?

Mr. Brown: Really, I cannot go into details of earnings at this time of night. I think that we shall have to continue this debate in correspondence, or perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend will do so with the hon. Member.
There are two other rail-sea routes between Euston and Northern Ireland—those via Heysham and via Liverpool. The former has one train each way Mondays to Saturdays and the latter one train each way daily. These rail services are part of the Railways Board's commercial network.
The hon. Member also asks what alternative arrangements, other than an express bus, could be made for conveying these passengers if the train did not run. It is primarily for the Railways Board to suggest alternatives, but I understand that there are several possibilities which the Board is now examining.
It seemed to my right hon. Friend that in these circumstances the need for the condition attached to he 1964 closure decision should be re-examined. Such reconsideration would in any case have been sensible six years after the condition was imposed, even if the service were not giant-aided. We intend, therefore, to consult the Scottish Economic Planning Council, of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is Chairman, and the Transport Users Consultative Committee for Scotland, as well as the Northern Ireland Government. But before we initiate this consultation, it seemed to us essential to discuss with the Railways Board, which is currently

preparing its plans for the West Coast main line timetable from May, 1971, onwards, how the continuance of a sleeper service to Stranraer might fit in with those plans. I hope that we shall have a view from the Railways Board within the next few months, and this will then enable us to determine the basis on which we should consult the bodies I have already mentioned.
The hon. Member for Galloway will see from this that we have as yet taken no decision that the condition will be waived, and it is quite impossible to give him any indication at this stage of what the Board would subsequently decide to do about this service, even if it were waived. I repeat, however, that it is by no means certain that the train will not continue to run whatever our decision on the future of the 1964 condition.
The hon. Member complained about conditions at Stranraer Harbour station. I am glad to be able to tell him that the Railways Board plans to start work on renovating the station later this year. This, I hope, will give him some fresh hope.
I understand that the announcement about the examination of this service has given rise to some anxiety in South-West Scotland and in Northern Ireland. This is understandable, but in so far as the anxiety concerns the Glasgow to Stranraer service it is totally unnecessary, and in so far as it concerns the boat train itself it is at least premature. I hope that the explanation I have given of the circumstances which led to this examination will remove these unnecessary anxieties and allay the fears of the hon. Member for Galloway and the hon. Member for Antrim, North, and, indeed, of their constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.